Leading at the Edge

I've just finished reading the book titled "Leading at the Edge" by Dennis N.T. Perkins, wherein he introduces 10 Strategies for Leading at the Edge. By Edge, the author means highly demanding situations - wherein life's normal challenges, as we see them (or feel them) are felt in much greater impact when survival may be at stake... where one's actions may very well be the basis for continuing... or disappearing on the face of this Earth.

In giving us these 10 strategies, Perkins uses, as an analogy, the adventures of a famed explorer Earnest Shackleton and his Imperial Trans-Antarctic expedition. Let me list out these strategies, just for posterity...

1. Vision and Quick Victories - Never loose sight of the ultimate goal and focus energy on short-term objectives.

2. Symbolism and Personal Example - Set a personal example with visible, memorable symbols and behaviors.

3. Optimism and Reality - Instill optimism and confidence, but stay grounded on reality.

4. Stamina - Take care of yourself; Maintain your stamina and let go of guilt.

5. The Team Message - Reinforce the team message constantly: "We are one - we live or die together".

6. Core Team Values - Minimize status differences, and insist on courtesy and mutual respect.

7. Conflict - Master conflict - deal with anger in small doses, and avoid needless power struggles.

8. Lighten Up - Find something to celebrate and something to laugh about.

9. Risk - Be willing to take the Big Risk.

10. Tenacious Creativity - Never give up - there's always another move.

If you wish to know more about these 10 strategies, I strongly suggest purchasing (or borrowing) a copy of this book... in fact, I would advice the earlier option, since the book has self assessments that one can use, and return to at latter dates to see how he, or she, is doing regarding leading at the Edge.

Want to know more? Here's a PDF from www.syncreticsgroup.com showing a 4 page interview with Perkins. It shed more light on the topics - and should be a good enough teaser for anyone wondering if the book is really worth getting. I've provided the link to where I found the file:

http://www.syncreticsgroup.com/pdfs/Interview%20with%20
Dennis%20Perkins%20about%20Leading%20at%20the%20Edge.pdf

I shall be posting my results on said assessments in a separate entry.

The A-E of having an Optimistic attitude:

'No one can really be an optimist all the time'
'Anyone can be an optimist sometime'

What's the difference with these two statements? Aside from the obvious differences in the sentence usage, is the message any different? Technically, it describes the same thing... that of optimism not always being the case for anyone. Yet (and this is not from the viewpoint of anyone supremely gifted with grammatical rules, mind you) I would think that it bears scrutiny with respect to who might utter such phrase, or use such words.

The latter of the two sentences may be used more often by optimists, while the previous statement would, of course, be used by the more pessimistic-inclined. Its basically the same philosophical debate as having the glass being half full or empty... the pessimist will insist it is half empty, while the optimist will point out it is half full? Difference? Viewpoint.

Why is this important to know? Because people with the right (i.e. optimistically inclined) attitude tend to be more motivated, more inclined to success. The problem is... what if I'm not 'normally' inclined to being an optimist? How does one get out of the rut? Here's one option.

In the book 'Leading at the Edge', Dennis Perkins and company suggest a five step process, as introduced by Martin Seligman, a psychologist. This is as follows...

1) Adversity - identify it, when was this last encountered;

2) Beliefs - be aware of them, question them - specifically, your thoughts or beliefs of the event;

3)Consequences - recognize the actions or effects of your beliefs;

4) Dispute - question, challenge your negative beliefs about the item or action being considered;

5) Energy - generate what is necessary to overcome negative consequences.

This 5-step process is likewise called the Learned Optimist's approach, signifying the fact that anyone can learn this skill, and it will help them focus on what it means to be thinking and talking optimistically.

An Uplifting Comment!

Nothing too profound this time around... just wanted to share a comment from a participant of a training I recently conducted. This was in Accenture and the training was about John Beck's Leader's Window, which I conducted with Naira Orbeta. The comment came from one of our participant - Jon Aves, one of the company's (up and coming) project manager.

I quote what Jon said: "I attended two trainings this week , both by Johns - the first one, was by John Maxwell, and the second by John Beck, and I must say that between these two, I learned a whole lot more with Beck's Leaders; Window - as conducted by both Butch and Naira, than from Maxwell". WOW!!!

Jon then confirms to the rest of his fellow participants that his comment should not be taken lightly, since the company spent millions to have that one day training with Maxwell. Though I'd have to consider the backgrounder of said Maxwell training, I can't deny that I did feel energized by said comment.

But let me put things into perspective - at least, from my end. Credibly conducting Beck's training was never an issue to me - I know that I'm very competent, and as Rory mentioned while said training was happening, 'I seem to know it like the back of my hand' - well, I do... this is not hubris, but just plain and simple fact.

I would not normally be moved by comments saying that I'm good, or the training I conducted was great - 'been there, done that', so what else is new...

Make no mistake though, I still appreciate these type fo comments, and appreciate the genuine gratitude accompanying it, but nothing really move me to remember such comment beyond the training. Perhaps because I realized early on that I can't afford to rest on my laurels, so I set these aside and focus on my next assignment.

Jon's comment was different, though, he:
a) indirectly stated that the Maxwell training was less effective than Beck's;
b) likewise stated, in the same breath, that Naira and I gave him more value for his time (never mind the comparative cost) with the training we conducted, than Maxwell personally conducting his course in Manila.

Make no mistake, I respect Maxwell very much - and would hope to be as successful as the man in the talk circuits, someday. I've several of his books, and would consider his as one influence when it comes to my taking in ideas that I often pass around and use in my talks. He's up there amongst the authors I admire, together with Covey and Blanchard... so imagine how such a comment would impact me. Heck, lets just say that I envied Jon that he was able to attend such a course through company sponsorship. I'd love to sit and listen to John Maxwell talk.

That said, it would also be hard to dismiss said comment as fanciful, as I gauge Jon Aves to be a person who says what he thinks - not one who fancies exaggerations, nor does he seem to be one to conduct white washes. Jon can epitomize what an Accenture leader is, so I don't think he was just playing on the audience for spotlight time, nor was he being political in talking favorably about those in front of him.

Jon's comments would have to be seen in a credible manner - at least, as credible as its source... and Jon seems credible.

So yeah... great comment. It may not add to my financial surplus - it definitely does nothing else but add to the many accolades I've received; most of them forgotten. But this particular comment falls uniquely into the category of my having been compared - well, sort of... to John Maxwell and his works.

Jon's comments strongly validated the Leader's Window - and it likewise validated both Naira and me with it.

More informative (and in that sense, getting better value for money) than John Maxwell's talk... wow.

Thanks, Jon. Great validation.

As of this time, the democratic race is not yet over - yet many analyst agree that Senator Clinton's chances are fading - a stark contrast to the thought about her being the shoe-in winner for the Democratic party nominations. In fact, her competitor - Barack Obama, is leading and sees the nominations within his grasp.

The thing is,,, how did Obama's team do the seemingly impossible - that is, beat the Clinton camp in a race they (the Clintons) had a whole lot of experience in? After all, prior to this particular 2008 presidential nominations, their candidate (Obama) was hardly a household name.

Well... a great leader can inspire... can make people believe... and can let others do the seemingly impossible. But I'm not just talking about the candidate; sure... Barack seems to fit that mold too - but this article (see link below) is all about the people surrounding him - those that he'd asked to help him, This Yahoo link says it all - and is a welcome reminder to what teamwork, a shared vision, integrity and leadership by example can do to get things done.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_el_pr/obama_s_team

Of course, lets also not forget one important factor here... this team knew the pulse of the people, and was able to market Barack in that manner... they help him set the tone and message of his campaign, were honest and very dependable - and if I read between the lines properly, the campaign was able to hurdle the financial hurdles of Super Tuesday (unlike the Clinton team) by tapping a seemingly volunteerism mentality. Many of Barack's team players could have been payed more by the Clinton camp - but they opted to stay in the Obama camp.

Its an article worth reading in greater detail, should a book about it come out - and if my instincts are right, chances are, one will.

Democratic candidates for 2008

It may very well be the free world's most scrutinized exercise in selecting a leader - I refer to the elections for the President of the Unites States of America, for whatever else others may say about that nation, realpolitiks dictate that this is one of the most influential - if not THE most influential nation of the early 21st century.

Naturally, people from many walks of life are inundated with news regarding how this coming 2008 nominations - and later, the elections proper, will be played out... and ; thanks to the Internet, people are better exposed to many dimensions of the leading candidates. Never has a set of nominees been so... transparent to the public.

At the end of the day, this is purely an exercise to the right of suffrage by the Americans - but the whole world is watching... okay - that may be an exaggeration, but most - if not all peoples are watching... and I am certainly one of these non-American, closely observing the proceedings.

The question is "why?". Its not that I'm going to vote... and these decisions are happening half a world away - so why am I monitoring this? Simple... really, whoever wins becomes the leader most influential in the free world - and then some. So its really a curiosity to see how the American elections will pan out. Not just the exercise itself - but the candidates as well.

Of this current race, the more interesting... and possibly exciting race is actually between two democrats - both historic in themselves. On one side of the Democratic nominations, we have Hillary Clinton - former first lady to Bill Clinton (the last Democratic U.S. president) and current New York senator. On the other, Barack Husein Obama, first-timer senator, and definitely the first Black candidate seen most likely to become a President.

Prior to Barack, the only time a Black American was possibly considered as a viable candidate was General Collin Powell - but being a Republican, he decided not to run in favor of G.W. Bush. With Barack, many people (mostly Blacks) see this as a strong time for change.

To Barack's credit, he has not towed the race line - as he has constantly preached, lectured and made known his stance for a politics of change - specifically, positive change. No divisiveness, no old politics of special interests... its more a politics of adapting a "Can Do" attitude to change. The message is strong and it hits the hearts of those frustrated and jaded with the way politics has been played out by these past administrations... and although the focused target is quite naturally the Bush administration - lets not forget that prior to Bush, the Clintons had the White House and may very well be part of this 'past administrations' that many such jaded Americans feel strongly against.

Hillary, on the other hand, is the first Woman candidate ever with as good a chance at the Democratic nomination for presidency. At another time and place, I feel that these two Democrats would easily sweep the contest for presidency from leading Republican candidate - John McCain. Nothing against McCain, but his Republican predecessor - G.W. isn't exactly helping give the party a positive light.

In a direct comparison between Obama and Clinton, both present viable change... however, Obama seems to present the more radical shift... the fresh perspective working for him, as others do not see him as a jaded politician - one that has learned to thrive with the bad habits of politics. Hillary, on the other hand, has that background... but what she also has - and in great quantity, is experience with the ins and outs of U.S. and global realpolitiks. But is experience - specially if its to lead to the same old (and not so ideal) habits, enough to ensure a Clinton win? Will Barack's lack of real world experience hinder his candidacy?

As these two show a very tight battle for the Democratic nominations, I can't help but think that they are focusing too much energy countering each other, that by the time either one becomes the official candidate, they would be tired... while McCain is coming in fresh. John must be enjoying the show - and many Democrats are starting to worry about the sustainability of each campaign against a fresh Republican start.

It would be irony of ironies, should the two strongest Democratic candidates make the voters feel too tired of rooting for them, that they will just forget about the entire thing. I hope not. Like I said, this is one contest that is very exciting... and to just give up at the latter stage would be tragic. Barack has as one of his slogan "American Do" - an obvious play with "can do" meaning a "can do" attitude, and between Barack and Hillary, I may be partial to the former, rather than the latter - specially if one is serious about change.

How they campaigned, the strategies they used... this will be a great book to read from both camp's insider viewpoint. I like Barack - and though I am not an American, I like the message he has been delivering. Here's but one example...

Barack's biggest challenge was when his pastor ironically gave rather scathing (but historically true) remarks about Black frustrations against a White-controlled economy - one which many saw as a divisive message... and one that Barack had to react to... and despite this man being Barack's religious adviser, Barack had to say that the man's statements were wrong - that the thinking had to change - and this was just one of his needed change. One that had to start with a better attitude towards the situation. It was a problem borne out by both sides - and both sides had to fix it collectively.

I will not be surprised if he wins the nominations - but I will be sorry to see Hillary just fade to the side after this. As shown by this current campaign, she's getting almost as much as Barack, and it would be a fatal mistake not to ask her support at the end - and hope that Democrats have not yet been too frustrated with what is happening with their nominations proceedings. After all, 'hope' and 'change' are great platforms to ride in - specially when the candidate seems credible enough to deliver.

If ideals were basis - Barack would win. But realpolitiks will need him to be well informed and well-prepared - and we know that with exception to former President Bill, Hillary fits that bill to a T.

In fact, if these two Democrats can become a ticket unto themselves, I'd imagine McCain really staying up at night. If they - both Barack and Hillary, are true leaders, this will be the way to go.

Disney's Leadership (or Mickey's 10 Commandments)

Here's something I just had to share from a forum I frequent (the leadership hub) . Its supposedly how Disney practices its business models - though it can easily be gleaned as potential leadership tenets themselves. Whether we have Marty Sklar - then head of Disney Imagineering to thank, or Walt himself, I don't know... but I think it is best to honor both by sharing this to as much people as possible.

Without further ado... the 10 commandments.

1. Know your audience
   Don't bore people, talk down to them or lose them by assuming that they know what you know.
   
2. Wear your guest's shoes
   Insist that designers, staff and your board members experience your facility as visitors as often as possible.
   
3. Organize the flow of people and ideas
   Use good story telling techniques. Tell good stories not lectures.
   
4. Create a ‘come to me’ (the castle, the Epcot dome)
   Lead visitors from one area to another by creating visual magnets and giving visitors rewards for making the journey.
   
5. Communicate with visual literacy
   Make good use of all the non-verbal ways of communication - colour, shape, form, texture.
   
6. Avoid overload
   Resist the temptation to tell too much, to have too many objects. Don't force people to swallow more than they can digest, try to stimulate and provide guidance to those who want more.
   
7. Tell one story at a time
   If you have a lot of information divide it into distinct, logical, organized stories. People can absorb and retain information more clearly if the path to the next concept is clear and logical.
   
8. Avoid contradiction
   Clear institutional identity helps give you the competitive edge. The public needs to know who you are and what differentiates you from other institutions they may have seen.
   
9. For every ounce of treatment, provide a ton of fun
   How do you woo people from all other temptations? Give people plenty of opportunity to enjoy themselves by emphasizing ways that let people participate in the experience and by making your environment rich and appealing to all senses.
   
10. Keep it up
    Never underestimate the importance of cleanliness and routine maintenance. People expect to get a good show every time. They will comment more on broken and dirty stuff.

Source: A talk given by Marty Sklar, then head of Walt Disney Imagineering

www.theleadershiphub.com/blogs/mickeys-ten-commandments-and-how-they-apply-leadership

Golf and the Game of Leadership

I've been reading a Leadership book quite recently entitles "Golf and the Game of Leadership". Its by Donald Mc Hugh, and he obviously infuses parallelisms with the game and the practice. As I read through his chapters, I found them easy to digest and internalize. His ideas are not necessarily new - but they are central to the concept of leadership.

One particular> chapter had a little test for its readers where we are asked to force rank five (5) important Leadership-connected personality traits, and as Mr. Mc Hugh warns, it was harder than it looks. You rank the one most important to you with a 5 and proceed to rank the rest, with the least important one garnering a 1.

The traits?

• Trustworthiness
• Giving Credit where Credit is due
• Doing what is Right vs. what is Easy
• Honesty
• People matter

Before going any further, you might want to take a few moments of your time to answer this one yourself, then you can compare your response with mine and see if we think alike - or you are a leader of a different leaning. Of course, anyone could rank things in any way - and there is no real right answer. Though something - personality perhaps?, gets revealed in one's choices.

You done? Okay, here's what I chose and how I went about it.

I rated the 5 characteristics (as presented from top to bottom) in this order - 1,2,4,5,3 (meaning Trustworthiness gets 1, i.e. 'least important'; while Honesty gets the 5 - being the most important of them all). I could say that I was honestly surprised with my answers too - considering that I thought it was really important for me to be seen as trustworthy.

But here's how I approached things. I thought to myself, okay... which is more important - trustworthiness or giving credit where due? I thought that if I do the second, I would earn the first - hence in a 'cause and effect' consideration, I would have to rank option 2 higher than option 1.

Between option 3 and 4? No contest. This is on the given assumption that easy is not the right way - because if there was an easy and right way, then it would be a no-brainer choice. People will choose easy if they wanted shortcuts - hence it could entail cheating a bit, shaving a bit of quality here to reach a deadline, and I would normally follow that lead - after all, I am normally practical - but... it would not be honest. Between doing what is practical vs. what is right, I would have to say that given my exposure to the Quality Initiatives of CMMI, I would have to say 'go for what is right - even if its harder. If I did that, it would show that I am honest. So again, one becomes the prerequisite - or foundation of the other. Hence Honesty over Right vs. Easy.

I now needed to consider 'People matter' as an option. Maybe its my cultural upbringing about 'Family matters' or work harmony - but I felt that working with others was relatively important. How can anyone lead, if he or she was not able to reach others? How can I reach others if I don't show any semblance of interest or respect for others? Now, was this higher than Credit where its due? I'd say that to give credit where its due would entail the trait of being able to respect and mold people - hence the prerequisite of being interested in them - knowing they do matter. That said, I decided that People Matter had greater weight than Credit where due.

Between Credit where due and Right even if not Easy? Right vs. Easy was a more challenging task - and so it had the edge. Thus putting Right vs. Easy second to Honesty, followed by People-oriented (prerequisite of teamwork) at third; and of course Credit where due comes next followed by Trustworthiness.

Again, let me reiterate, Trustworthiness is very important to me - I rarely give my promise because I don't want to end up breaking them. So if this is the bottom of the five, you can imagine how much weight I put in the other four. This was my logical (and ideal) reasoning.

Having said that, I did another ranking - this time representative of what I normally seem to practice... and here is how it came out. 5,3,1,2,4.

Like I said, Trustworthiness is important - so I make sure I come across as such a person. Next is People-matter where I emphasize that the team is important. There is a Vulcan saying: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" and I may prescribe to this. It also shows when I always remember the "Golden Rule" (the original one anyway). Number 3 is Credit where it is due, and coming at 2 points is Honesty and lastly, we have Right vs. Easy.

So I have two sets of numbers - the ideal and the real (or practical). My goal is to transpose myself from the actual to the ideal.

The question is... can I afford to do this?

I hope so.