As you probably all know by now, the Fundação Dom Cabral is one of the world’s leading centre for executive and organizations development. In 2010, it was ranked 6^th by the Financial Times (I am no great fan of such rankings; it is there for the record and those who need it;)

Since July 2009, I regularly join the Foundation for work in common. During my yearly appraisal with three members of the Board (a rather frank and direct two way feedback discussion as I like them;), I was seeking to understand the reasons for the Institute’s success. The determination and humility of its leaders (reminding of the “Good to Great” attributes) linked to its values and the quality of its clients and people were mentioned.

But Wagner Veloso, one of the three directors present, drew my attention on the very unusual way in which the Foundation combines elements of traditional organizations with free wheeling ones of organic communities[1].

At the top, sit three Presidents. They are the visible part of the iceberg to the outside world as well as the institutional link towards authorities, regulators, press, clients etc… The outside world needs stable reference points and contacts, so the Presidents tenure has been stable over the years. Interestingly, the Presidents embody, through their styles and characters, the unspoken values and culture of the Foundation: stability and respectability for one, the humanistic and people side for another and the creativity and charisma for the third. The stability around them has also kept potential politics to the minimum as they were clearly there to last.

Below them is a team of Directors: from a number of five a few years ago, they decided amongst themselves to reduce their group to three, meaning that two of them chose to go back to “the ranks”. Their tenure usually has a 3-5 year horizon in order to enable them to run mid-long term projects with enough serenity. However, it is made clear that they act as “primus inter pares” and that, once their mission is over they should normally rejoin their colleagues and let someone else be “invited” (the word “promoted” is banned) to take over their heavy responsibilities. The person invited is therefore given a chance to prove her leadership, organizational and managerial skills as well as influence the culture and strategy of the firm.

The support functions, due to the sharp level of specialization are also relatively stable although, it is my understanding that, should someone wish to grow and develop by changing department, their request is always taken serious and explored with an open mind.

The organic part comes from the way professors (delivering the courses) and project leaders (relationship managers) are organized… Contrary to most of the business schools I know (and despite their vehement protests and claims of the contrary), a project leader at Foundation Cabral has the total freedom to choose who they feel is the best fit for a given project. She has no pressure for hiring a full time faculty (whose salary is paid by the school) and may choose anyone from the outside… This is giving place to a healthy “Mercato” as in football, where visiting (self employed, who account for more than 80% of faculty in FDC) and full time faculty are encouraged to continuously develop their skills, edge and style, if they wish to be invited to teach on programs. It also ensures that the client gets the best team and not the one that will help the institution’s financial bottom line at best. The same goes for using or not the school’s dream campus: Project leaders are free to choose the right environment for their course and not kindly asked to support the heavy infrastructure created around the school (which I admit I am still struggling with: where is an executive education’s main value? Its fixed assets and infrastructure or its “daily moving assets” teaching and supporting every day?).

I do not know how much of this is relevant to your own organizations but I thought it might be thought provoking (and reassuring to see for once an academic organization ahead of the pack in terms of organization and leadership;)

On my way to a long non-stop series of workshops and engagement processes in Brazil, as well as a short and welcome ten days of break with my family. I will therefore let you all “off the hook” for this month of August and start again around mid-September (we are moving house upon our return…). 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

A moment of exceptional beauty and aesthetics to start this week: please take a look at this short clip of highlights of “Alegria”, one of the Cirque du Soleil’s most successful shows…

Observe the complexity of movements, the absolute necessity of perfect timing and positioning of the different actors…

Look at those subtle and invisible gestures of care and support such as the one of “Tamir” (the round, yellow dressed character) discreetly positioning himself as a mark and support at the end of the trampoline lane for the acrobats.

Admire and let yourself be moved by the interaction between the child and the Russian acrobat when preparing themselves for a “salto mortale” on the bars… The child unconditionally trusts the adult who, in return, is totally focused on his responsibility towards the very young artist…

Many management books and articles have explained (a posteriori?) the strategy of the Cirque’s founding fathers. But none has ever wondered how such a magic was created and how, night after night, city after city, continent after continent, show after show, the Cirque could maintain its enthusiasm and the attraction it has on a very loyal “tribe” of followers…

People who founded the Cirque and those who join it live their very strong Purpose. “Our mission is to invoke the imagination, provoke the senses and evoke the emotions of people throughout the world… As we pursue our dreams and grow our business it is also our intention to position ourselves in the community as an agent of change…” These values and sense of Purpose are very tangible when watching an exhibition of the Cirque.

When the Cirque is auditioning people for a job (be it “back-office”, ie. All those who support the show and make it possible for the artists to shine, without being themselves on stage or “front office”, the artists on stage) I was once explained that two main criteria come to play:

1. Competence: like anywhere else, the Cirque seeks to get the best people to do the job
2. Generosity: this would make the Cirque an unexpected and advanced player in the Open Economy. Generosity is this “roadie” who will test the trapezes an extra time for the acrobat. Generosity it is this artist who is on stage for the public and not for fulfilling a narcissistic ego. Generosity is the “One Drop Foundation” of the Cirque seeking to develop younger people as artists of the future

Linked to that, the leadership style in the Cirque is the cherry on the cake: People in there understand the purpose and through their generosity and professionalisms are trusted to do the best for their peers and for the public!

Once again, a clear, shared and owned sense of purpose, a very few guidelines (professionalism and generosity) and an engaging style of leadership are the key ingredients to sustainable success even in a “Blue Ocean”.

More words would spoil the magic. Have an “Alegria” week!

In São-Paulo for the final “Leading in the Open Economy” session with 14 outstanding Brazilian CEO’s and their teams, then in Oslo to finish, Saturday, in Switzerland with a team of Swiss Olympic trainers, seeking to understand how their own styles need to evolve with the new generation of athletes.

Didier

When confronted to complexity, humans tend to respond by increasing control, micro-management and closing. The recent crisis provided a strong although well intentioned illustration of this: Some CEO’s were requesting daily cash flow statements of their people as a way to feel “in control”, showing concern and seeking to grow a necessary sense of urgency in the ranks. However, thinking of the energy that such a measure has wasted internally, I am not sure its benefits outweighed the inconvenients.

Always well intentioned, another story comes to mind: a few years ago, I was invited to accompany a large culture and strategy change in a multinational. In the middle of the reflection upon engagement, one of the Board members “parachuted” a communication consulting firm which took us through three painful hours of powerpoints on crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s about the next vision statement. It was fascinating to see how obsession for details completely obscured the much more needed big picture…

The response to complexity is rather counter-intuitive. It is about co-creating clarity and inspiration around a strong sense of purpose; then, as we saw last week, letting go of control. In another clip, Lt. General Van Riper explains why a powerful sense of Purpose is more important than anything else in times of crisis and urgency.

If you still have doubts try to play the amazing simulation one of our colleagues, Tony Page, brought back from a seminar he followed, dedicated to Complex Adaptive Systems:

- Explain to the participants that they all have one individual objective: “To identify two people in the group and to go and stand at equal distance between them”… This seems like a pretty simple task at first glance. However, participants rapidly realize this must be an impossible one to complete (especially if they are 250 people taking part as I ran this simulation once on a football pitch)… “If I choose x as a reference point and she chooses y who, in turn, has chosen me, it will be a vicious, endless circle”, everybody starts to think

- There are a few constraints: 1) Do not change the two reference people during the action, they should always stay the same, 2) stay on the agreed playing field (just to ensure people don’t walk too far which would simply delay the ending slightly), 3) no running (to avoid people colliding), 4) You can’t show in any manner who your two reference people are and 5) do not try to organize this by talking. Any discussion relating to organizing this apparent mess is prohibited.

If you are not sure, why not try in your next alumni or family reunion? In my humble experience (more than a hundred times) it never takes more than three minutes for people to self-organize and find a solution.

Try to think now how this would work, should you order a “Command & control” micro manager to take charge here? It would just be messy and chaotic even though the leader would try to go for exactly the opposite: order (and progress for the Brazilians;)…

At the time of engaging into new and ambitious strategy and culture change projects, may the wisdom of retired General Van Riper inspire us all.

Still two bedrooms in our home available for those of you stranded nearby Switzerland! My flights to Germany and Helsinki canceled… Will reach Zurich and Paris by car… Courage to you all

Didier

My partners and I are about to embark on a journey, with several organizations in the world, which have decided to seriously engage their people in their strategy implementation and create (more) “Intelligent Organizations”.

I was looking for leaders having taken their people through similar paths. Fabio Barbosa in Banco Santander Brasil, Jorgen Knudstrop and his team in Lego or Robert Polet with Gucci were examples that jumped to mind.

I then watched the video herebelow. For those of you who missed previous posts, Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper served in the US Marine corps. He is known amongst others for being one of the 8 US Generals to call for Donald Rumsfeld resignation in 2006. Van Riper had also used “Complex Adaptive Systems” theory to inflict a humiliating defeat to the US Army in the 250 million $ simulated invasion of Iraq called Millennium Challenge 2002.

“In Command and out of control” is the challenge those companies we are going to work for have all identified. To be in command suggests that the top leaders will not abdicate their responsibilities and will continue to be accountable for the company’s result. They will coordinate, continuously scrutinize the periphery of their firm’s business model and look for disruptions threats or opportunities. But (and that will be the most challenging belief and behavioural change for some of the leaders) they will learn to let go of control. As Van Riper suggests, once we have co-created and shared and meaningful purpose, and that all of our teams have integrated the few critical rules of engagement, then the best we can do as leaders is trust them to take the right decisions as they are the ones who are close to the evolving markets and customers.

I encourage you to watch the several clips of Lt General Van Riper posted on Youtube as they are quite insightful…

Last week of preparation before a three months marathon which will take me to Brazil, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore and Switzerland… Have a great week all,

Didier

As promised, last week, I propose to give us some time for reflection on the theme of the “Open Economy” and would like to invite you (via e.mail or on the blog) to  co-create the “Disruption Experience” which we want to be novel, powerful and impactful.

The Disruption Experience (“The most life-changing Executive Think-Tank you’ll ever attend”) will be a highly innovative workshop aiming at supporting CEO’s and their teams explore and understand what the emerging Open Economy is about. It will help you and your team structure your thoughts and response to it (“Preparing for the future instead of guessing it”) and ready yourselves in terms of strategic process, organization (creating intelligent organizations) and leadership. We hope to run the first workshop in August/September in São-Paulo (Brazil is the country where many of these things are already happening) and take it to other places later.

The series of articles I just wrote on the Open Economy can be found under “categories” on the right of the blog page (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/category/open-networkopen-source-leadership/).

Open Economy articles follow the  structure below:

A) Introductory articles:

“From guessing the future to preparing for it”: was sharing back in September, the first intuitions my partners and I had that the future of strategy would be far more around the process of engaging people and organizations into strategy than the mere content.(http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2009/09/11/from-guessing-the-future-to-preparing-for-it/)

“The biggest disruption in History”: was following the previous post, explaining that the fundamental assumption of scarcity of information had shifted to abundance and that it was making the capacity of the leaders to engage their people into the future of the organization each time more compelling (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2009/10/04/the-biggest-disruption-in-history/)

“Which footprint do we want to leave as leaders of the next decade?”: was building on an excellent post of Umair Haque (Havas Media Lab and Harvard Business Review blogger), “The Builders’ Manifesto” inviting us to be reconstructing leaders rather than maintenance leaders(http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/01/09/which-footprint-do-we-want-to-leavelive-as-leaders-of-the-next-decade%E2%80%9D/).

B) Articles around the history and emerging values of the Open Economy

“On our way towards Open Economy” really launched the series of posts about the topic. It provided a bit of background and history (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/01/23/on-our-way-towards-open-economy/)

“Please don’t call this Economy 2.0!” developed the sets of values which are starting to emerge from the Open Economy (Generosity/Responsibility & self discipline, Abundance principle of, authentic Value, Interdependence, Trust, Authenticity, Sharing attitude) http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/01/30/dont-call-this-economy-2-0/

C) Articles around the impact of Open Economy on our ways of organizing

“The starfish and the spider” build the case for migrating from traditional, hierarchy dependent and centralized organization towards decentralized and purpose-led organisms which we call “Intelligent Organizations”. (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/02/06/%E2%80%9Cthe-starfish-and-the-spider-or-the-urge-to-design-intelligent-organizations%E2%80%9D/)

“Why I can’t agree with Groucho Marx” continues to buid the case of “Intelligent Organizations” taking several military cases and contradicting G. Marx famous provocation “Army intelligence is a contradiction in terms” (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/02/14/why-i-can%E2%80%99t-agree-with-groucho-marx/).

“From pyramidal to organic structures” develops the first criteria for building intelligent organizations: a strong and shared sense of Purpose (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/02/22/from-pyramidal-to-organic-structures/)

“The plane that was flown by 500 pilots” expands on the second condition for designing an intelligent organization: a permanent and purpose related feedback loop (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/02/28/the-plane-that-was-flown-by-500-pilots/)

“Connecting People” elaborates on the third condition to maintain an intelligent organization: a fertile ground of relationships (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/03/07/%E2%80%9Cconnecting-people%E2%80%9D/)

D) Article around the way Open Economy impacts leadership

“Leading in the Open Economy: disrupting, connecting, tribalizing and engaging”: builds on several inputs to describe how leadership styles and purpose will evolve with the Open Economy (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/03/14/%E2%80%9Cleading-in-the-open-economy-disrupting-connecting-tribalizing-and-engaging%E2%80%9D/)

E) Article about the strategy impact of the Open Economy

“The Game Changers in the Open Economy” presents some of the strategic Game Changers that Gerd Leonhard sees raising with the Open Economy (http://blog.enablersnetwork.com/2010/03/21/%E2%80%9Cthe-game-changers-in-the-open-economy%E2%80%9D/)

I hope you will find this summary helpful. In Salvador (Bahia) for a few more days and back to Switzerland soon. Have a great week

Didier

In an excellent “post” (article) on his blog[1], Seth Godin creates a distinction between the two cultures that internet has enabled: one made of people whom, we would say, work following the GRAVITAS principles and go deep in their thinking, seeking to be real leaders in the Open Economy and another, which he calls “clickers culture”, a sort of fast food and superficial consumption of everything that flies on the net. Therefore his question:

“Should I write blog posts that increase my traffic or that help change the way (a few) people think?”

This as well as several feedbacks asking for a bit of time to digest all the recent articles on the “Open Economy”, got me to decide that I will “slow down” and let you time to read and catch up. So my next post will be a simple attempt to summarize all the articles written these last weeks on the “Open Economy” as well as give you time to start engaging more, co-creating, commenting, sharing opinions, although I am aware that this blog is rather unusual given the amount of CEO’s, Board members, partners and top execs amongst you and I do understand the reluctance to expose oneself personally.

A good way to start summarizing this reflection on the “Open Economy” is to share the “Game Changers” Gerd Leonhard recently exposed to a group of advanced thinking Brazilian (and Argentinean!) CEO’s with the Fundação Dom Cabral.

• “Open is not free”, the new monetization challenge: Some people seem to believe naively or mistakenly, that tomorrow will be a sort of Eden where everything will go for free (except what they sell of course). Nothing could be more wrong. Open is not free. Some things that used to be paying before now go for free but the phenomenon is more of a transfer of value and the challenge lays in how to monetize my skills, talent, service, product, provice or serduct…

• “Open vs closed”: Open will not be the new fashion or flavor of the month. Google may be seen as a symbol of Openness; It is the firm which makes available the most lines of codes on the net. On the other hand, Apple continues to be a symbol of Closed. Both are extremely successful at the moment. One world (Open or Closed) will not instantaneously replace the other, which will add to the complexity of leading in the Open Economy.

• “From Egosystems to Ecosystems” or the need for systemic thinking: The Banco Santander Brasil has adopted a ban in granting loans to companies responsible for deforestation in the Amazon. This measure was taken in coherence with the values of the bank and its commitment to sustainability.  However it realized that the “culprits” were also responsible for the well being of large communities in remote areas, through the first aid centers and schools they sponsored. Refusing them loans would endanger the survival of whole  communities. So the bank, reversed its stance to “We will help you become sustainable organizations so that we may grant you loans again in the future”.  The Ecosystem notion advocated by Gerd is linked to the interdependency value emerging from the Open Economy.

• “From consumers to followers”, or finding the “resonating focus” to emotionally engage our customers (and employees): our previous post already mentions this (Seth Godin and “Tribal Leadership”). Do not believe that customers are hooked forever. As Facebook painfully learned, a simple faux pas and they desert you in masses.

• “Friction is fiction”, or the challenges to the control attitude: Those basing their bargaining power on control (IP protection as an excuse to block competition and progress) will be up for disappointment. The image frequently used here is the one of a river, which grows bigger by the day. Throwing a huge rock to stop it, may succeed for a while until the water finds alternative ways of flowing. The Catholic Church learned this at it expenses during Guttenberg days: better understand the new technology and use it in an ethical way, than try to stop it. The same day the French Parliament finally voted its “three strikes” law (which would force access providers to switch of people guilty of illegal downloading), a list with nothing less than eight ways to legally go around this law was already circulating on the net…

• “From mass distribution to fragmentation”: Paralleling Seth Godin’s intuition that the days of mass production/mass advertising are over, Gerd warns us that intrusive advertising days are counted. We will need to carefully move from a “Push” paradigm to a Pull one through converting our clients and customers into tribes of aficionados. I could not believe the patience with which my son awaited his Apple computer (specially after having had to use one myself for 3 weeks but I guess I belong to the “other” Tribe;), for three months beyond the officially communicated delivery date…

• “The end of Passivity”, from desktop to mobile users: Mobile users are part of the “Tribe phenomenon” described by Godin. They have intents, opinions and may mobilize very quickly in favor or against something. This “Mobile Society” responds to different rules and principles than its predecessors.

In São-Paulo (starting to design our “Disruption Workshop”), Porto Alegre and Salvador de Bahia this week. Have a great week all,

Didier

After seeing how the new “Open Economy” will impact the way we strategize (from guessing the future to preparing for it) and organize (from centralized, hierarchical and pyramidal organizations towards more organic, decentralized and “intelligent organizations”, defined by a shared and engaging Purpose, a permanent, purpose-related feedback and a fertile ground of relationships), let us now explore how it shopuld affect the way we lead.

The values emerging from the Open Economy[1] (elegantly summarized by Michael Newman, one of our partners, under the acronym of G.R.A.V.I.T.A.S.) will no doubt impact the way we lead our people (G/Generosity, R/Responsibility & self discipline, A/principle of Abundance, V/authentic Value, I/Interdependence, T/Trust, A/Authenticity, S/Sharing attitude).

Disruption leaders: Gerd Leonhard talks about “Game Changers[2]” when he weighs the impact of Open Economy on our businesses. Nick van Heck likes to provoke by saying that “Disruption is what happens to the ill-prepared”. Last week, I was discussing with a bright young entrepreneur in a solid family business. He and the C.E.O. have the strong intuition that something will sooner rather than later strongly destabilize their business model (as Andy Grove wrote: “Only the paranoid survive!”). On the one hand, as wise leaders, they do not wish to disturb the operational excellence of the existing company and on the other, they want to be the ones disrupting the industry instead of being victims of circumstances. And they are right! Google or Apple constantly “disrupt” the markets (preferably those which are not their cash cows), keeping competitors reactive and following their lead rather than driving the markets themselves. Becoming “Disruption leaders” will change the way we lead in our firms. The opportunities and ideas will not come just from us anymore. Our capacity to listen, encourage (and toelrate/learn from mistakes “fail fast”) and engage our people will be fundamental. Disruptions leaders encourage their people to think and behave as market drivers not market driven…

Connecting leaders: Philippe Bobin[3] sees future leaders to have enhanced “Connection skills”. The “buttons simulation” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dwp6WshM8o) proves him right. Leaders will need to evolve from “Directors to Connectors”. Their role will also consist of connecting the apparently unrelated dots on the strategic map[4] and scrutinize constantly the world around them as well as remain permanently “switched on” with the various levels in their firm (and not just their faithful and loyal “close guard”). The most spectacular change I ever saw taking place was years ago in a Spanish bank when, in order to make sure that the strategic change they had communicated to the top 500 leaders would be lived and meaningful at the lower echelons, the Board members made it a point during whatever visit they would pay to any branch, to hold informal and purposeful dialogues with employees at all levels.

Tribal leaders: Seth Godin is one of the fashionable marketing gurus of this time. Not having heard about him will make you look pathetic during your next cocktail, so here is a short clip taken during a TED event in February 2009. Seth is exposing his original concept of “tribal leader”. (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html) and I find it very inspiring. Seth asks us  three questions:

-          Who are you upsetting? For him “Tribal Leaders” are “heretics” who challenge the status quo. So if you are not upsetting anyone in the market, you are probably waiting for being disrupted…

-          Who are you connecting? Tribal Leaders understand what “resonates” in people. “The Beatles didn’t invent teenagers, they decided to lead them, Bob Marley did not create the Rastafaris, he chose to inspire them”… Tribal Leaders understand what moves and resonates with people and excel at creating communities around that purpose

-          Who are you leading: Tribal Leaders don’t please everybody. They manage to change clients into aficionados, customers into fans and transform obedient and bored employees into passionate defenders of a cause. The old push model becomes an inspire and engage one

Engaging leaders: This takes us to the book my partners and I recently published[5]. For us, Engaging Leaders work on three agendas:

-          They co-create, with their people, clarity, meaning and ownership around the strategic or intellectual agenda (Logos)

-          They behave, visibly and spectacularly in ways which directly support and connect with the organization’s Purpose (Ethos). They practice actively Value Building Behaviours (active listening, asking open questions, summarizing, supporting, challenging, clarifying, seeking time-out and asking/giving feedback)

-          They create “emotional markers”, through powerful metaphors, stories and symbols, which enable people to engage emotionally into the organization’s purpose (Pathos)

On my way to Paris, have a great week all!

Didier

[2] I will elaborate on these in next week-end’s post always on Open Economy

[3] After a successful career in sports (1976 Montreal Olympics with the French Decathlon team), Philippe Bobin runs leadership Development for the specialty chemicals group Rhodia

[4] For an interesting view on the topic, read ”Scanning the Periphery” from G. Day & P. Schoemaker HBR November 2005

[5] D. Marlier, C. Parker & M.T.I. ”Engaging Leadership: three agendas for sustaining achievement” (April 2009) Palgrave/MacMillan

After covering the two first features of an “intelligent organism”, a strong and shared sense of Purpose and a purpose-related feedback loop, let’s explore the third one:

A fertile ground of relationships: An engaging Purpose and a constant feedback loop designed to help people stay aligned with it are not enough to create an intelligent organization. If our organs weren’t connected, if they didn’t “trust” each other, if “politics” were emerging between lungs, heart, brain and stomach, we would move towards death rapidly… Can you imagine the brain double-checking suspiciously the information it receives from specific parts of our body? Relationships don’t mean affection nor liking each other, it means “Connecting People”[1]. The short clip here below is a great illustration of this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmWTbJj5yTQ

Yes, these are just birds and this would never happen to smart executives as us ??? This metaphor tells us why certain firms will arrive after the party is over at the “latest disruption banquet”. This type of non-relationship creates functional silos, plants the seeds for distance and neutrality (when it is not destructive through internal competition and politics) between executives and departments. We are so busy defending our own ego, our own territory that we fail to remember the real war is taking place outside… and the macho-territorial rabbits see but too late, the sociable, gregarious turtles surfing on the wave of innovation.

Numerous examples abound like the one of a software company’s call centre where the leader had noticed a very significant difference in performance (measured in number of calls taken and problems solved) between her people. The only criteria separating the two groups were smoking (high performance) and non-smoking. The informal chat, during breaks in the smokers’ ghetto, was enough to build rapport and be the fertile ground for exchange of ideas and solutions. In order to test this, I regularly include “Connecting People” sessions in the workshops I am asked to design. The principle is dead simple: Get the 50, 100 or more participants to grab a coffee, ensure they do not drift out of the conference room, in isolation with their mobile devices and ask them to… connect and talk to each other. If the discussion goes nowhere, they change partners (no offence) if they find interesting common ground, they “stay connected”. The result is always fascinating: For sure, some people (the grumpy usual suspects) won’t have found any value in the exercise. And suddenly you will hear some voices going: “Incredible, I just spoke with X and she happens to know personally the CEO of the firm we are desperately trying to get our foot in the door with. She called him from here and we will have a lunch with him next week!” A fine producer of electronic devices was formally encouraging its people to develop internal and external relational networks through some sorts of sociogram[2] based evaluations. The story has it that, when one of the world’s very few suppliers of a crucial component to their industry saw their plant go in smoke, it took that relationship based company half the time of its closest competitors to find creative, alternative sources of supply, due to the high quality relational network its people had developed in the world.

There is less of a magic formula to build those relationships but initiatives such as taking time out with the team, reducing distance by showing vulnerability and authenticity, create an open environment where people may openly share, make mistakes, admit temporary incompetence, include dialogue about the quality of one’s relational network, all contribute to it.

Relationship is not a goal per se: It is the fertile ground on which collective intelligence will grow. The clip here below is somewhat dry and theoretical but makes the point that, when two people, apparently randomly connect, they may end up lighting the fire of a chain of information, transforming them into Purpose related intelligence or information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Dwp6WshM8o

Let me illustrate this with a last story: Some years ago, I was working with our partners for another electronic devices manufacturer. Some bean-counting, procedure-driven people, hidden behind the meanders of a plethoric administration had decided that adult people taking parts to our workshops could only drink two glasses of wine per dinner. This, of course had triggered my rebellious self and, regularly, part of my fees were going into paying the extra bottles that would contribute to enable the relationship building. One (late) night, one of the RD engineers dropped his prototype device on the floor. In a matter of seconds, his colleagues were dissecting the remaining of the dead machine: “How did you build this in? Why did you make that? Do you think this could fit into my prototype?” Their boss saw the scene and dropped: “That last bottle is on me, it just saved the company 50 million $!!!”

Relationship building is not about the universal brotherhood of mankind, it is the third and equally important step in designing organic “intelligent organizations”.

Preparing to go to France to enjoy working with a company who has demonstrated a strong sense of purpose in successfully sailing through troubled waters! I always receive a tremendously positive energy in being with them. Have a great week all!

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociogram

This week, we will cover the second feature of “Intelligent/Organic enterprises”, after last week’s “Strong and shared sense of Purpose”.

A permanent feedback loop: Staying with the human body metaphor: the only way to compensate for the lack of a centralized governing body (is it the heart, brain, nervous system???) is for all the components, aligned on the shared Purpose, to receive permanent feedback, indicating whether or not they are deviating from the line. Ginger Graham explains[1] how she installed simple and effective feedback processes when she became CEO at Guidant, by “assigning non executive coaches to senior managers to drum up grassroots feedback”.

In the clip below, also borrowed from Ernst & Young’s “Embracing Complexity”, we see Kevin Kelly (one of the “gurus” of the now old “New Economy”) inviting a room of 500 people to pilot a plane on a simulator. 250 persons command through their individual joystick the lateral movement of the plane (all joysticks are linked to a computer, which will “average” the orders given by the pilots) and the other 250 control the vertical movements. They are supposed to fly through four targets… fasten your seatbelts (with renewed apologies for poor picture)…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KR9G0FSaUU

So what can we notice?

There is a clear and shared Purpose: Fly this plane trough four targets.

The feedback is permanent (they see themselves fly and the immediate results of their collective actions) and directly related to the purpose (going through the targets). The feedback is meaningful, as people know how to interpretate it and immediately act on it (they do not need further instructions nor permission from Kevin in order to take corrective action)

Finally, you may have noticed the style and tone of intervention of Kevin Kelly: he controls his own anxiety rather than transmit it to the audience. With light touches of humour, a relaxed and sometimes firm tone, he directs his 500 pilots team towards success. My partners and I have sometimes used a comparable simulator in various organizations. We were almost always capable of guessing whether or not the flight would be successful, based on the capacity to let go of control needs of the leader in charge of the maneuver. Each time a “control freak” was I charge, the flight was rather bumpy, as he was seeking to control the feedback mechanism, showing little trust and respect to his troops (we suspect in some cases, some of the pilots to voluntarily play the kamikaze as this was probably their way of giving feedback to their anxious and autocratic leader…). Each time, we discretely had to jump in support of the exhausted leader and bring the plane and crew safely home On the contrary, when the leaders had taken some time to build a compelling and engaging reason for succeeding in the exercise (rather than order the people to fly through four targets), had ensured the pilots understood the feedback loop and how they could act on its results and used a “Kelly like” style and language, the mission was accomplished.

In more general terms, designing a permanent feedback loop process that will enable the organism to become intelligent and self-adaptive means:

• Identifying a few Purpose related indicators and ensure they are widely and regularly understood/updated/communicated

• Developing our people so that they understand what could impact positively and negatively the organism and its purpose. If our people understand this, they will live, breathe and “be” the Purpose of the firm. They will act and behave as early warning systems and propose new ways, ideas and initiatives that support the company’s Purpose

• The language of the leaders should reflect the Purpose and indicators in a way to permanently reinforce its existence and message.

Very grateful for the discussions I had in São-Paulo with fourteen forward looking CEO’s and bankers at Banco Santander Brasil already amazingly preparing themselves for the “Open Economy”. On my way to Zürich and Germany for reflecting on engaging leadership…

Have a great week all Didier