: politics aside ... a word on trust :

... some days, one's mental filters see lessons everywhere. I'm still mulling over Mandela's 8 leadership lessons, and maybe here is #9. Stephen Covey's son has built a whole industry around a book he wrote ... "The Speed of Trust" and Patrick Lencioni has 'building trust' as the base of his 5-level pyramid model for 'Overcoming the 5 Dysfunctions of a Team' ... hmmmm.

When you have trust, relationally, organizationally, politically? terribly difficult and challenging things can be tackled and accomplished reasonably. But when trust is missing even simple, supposedly straightforward things can go south, sideways, screwy. Marc Ambinder, a political columnist-blogger, commented last week on Obama's trust-dependent VP-choice decision making process. Funny though, the people he trusts the most aren't angling for the VP job, while the ones who are angling, he doesn't trust.

Maybe the answer is right there?

dlc

***


"Early in the spring, Barack Obama asked John Kerry for his advice on the vice presidential selection process. Kerry was too happy to oblige. Choose someone, he told Obama, that you trust completely. Don't expect the process to build trust. Don't choose someone with the expectation that you'll develop a trust.

This was, of course, the lesson that Kerry learned from 2004; he thought he could trust John Edwards; Edwards had promised Kerry that he deserved Kerry's trust; Edwards promised Kerry that he would be his full and complete partner.

It didn't work. And the recent revelations about Edwards personal life make Kerry's advice all the more acute.

In truth, there aren't too many potential VP picks who could be fairly said to have earned Barack Obama's trust. Not Hillary Clinton. Probably not Joe Biden. Not Evan Bayh. How could they? They've spent so little time with Obama, and none on neutral territory, when they have nothing to gain and thus no incentive to modify their behavior.

Michelle Obama, too, has counseled her husband about the imperative to trust the person he picks.

Assuming Obama agrees, it stands to reason that he won't choose someone he does not trust ALREADY.

He trusts Gov. Sebelius. He trusts Gov. Kaine. He trusts Sen. Jack Reed."

: on alignment : seeing the forest AND the trees :

... I came across this great quote ( context would be too long a story ) this morning over at Gaping Void, so ... I guess you could take the time to get the context yourself?

"I was at an open mic in one of hippest downtown coffee shops last week. [ There was ] a guy, angry as hell about the war, capitalism, all the while reading his piece from his new 3g iPhone. It doesn't add up to me."

I've been thinking about alignment, and 'models' and lots of stuff recently, wondering if we've lost the ability to discern means from ends, values from pragmatism, etc. This quote, if you can picture it ... some guy ranting away at an open mic reading the rant from his brand new iPhone ... making no connections at all between his assumed right to have and use technology and the global economic system that created and perpetuates it.

But are most of us any different? for example ... am I using energy ANY differently in my house and lifestyle than I was 2-3 years ago? or will I now that 2 of 3 kids will be away at school in 2 weeks? how comfortably ( numb ) have I gotten to the fact that I can easily make 3-4-5 "quick trips" a day ... just doing some errands you know, when a little forethought could reduce that to 1-2? I don't want some huge, lumbering SUV but I still mock the Smart car as ridiculous looking and probably unsafe. Why?

Anyhow, this is just an off-the-top-of-my-head post having read the above quote. A lot of things just don't add up to me either. I'd bet I could come up with 100 ... easily. Why is alignment so difficult? Specifically values alignment .. I mean, I want to be one of those people who say what they mean and mean what they say ...

Later,

dlc

: mandela on leadership = troublemaker : )

... came across this article in Time via Len.

Nelson Madela on eight lessons of leadership. Worth a read. Pragmatic, gutsy, savvy and motivating all at once.

Mandela celebrated his 90th birthday recently, and this article was put together as a sort of retrospective on his life and leadership, which were intimately intertwined. An interesting note ... Rolihlahla, Mandela's real first name, in Xhosa translates as "pulling down the branch of a tree" but its real meaning is "troublemaker." Here's his last lesson ... No. 8 ... Quitting is leading too

"Knowing how to abandon an idea, task or relationship is often the most difficult kind of decision a leader has to make. In many ways, Mandela's greatest legacy as President of South Africa is the way he chose to leave it. When he was elected in 1994, Mandela probably could have pressed to be President for life — and there were many who felt that in return for his years in prison, that was the least South Africa could do.

In the history of Africa, there have been only a handful of democratically elected leaders who willingly stood down from office. Mandela was determined to set a precedent for all who followed him — not only in South Africa but across the rest of the continent. He would be the anti-Mugabe, the man who gave birth to his country and refused to hold it hostage. "His job was to set the course," says Ramaphosa, "not to steer the ship." He knows that leaders lead as much by what they choose not to do as what they do.

Gotta love it. The article wraps up with ... "Ultimately, the key to understanding Mandela is those 27 years in prison. The man who walked onto Robben Island in 1964 was emotional, headstrong, easily stung. The man who emerged was balanced and disciplined. He is not and never has been introspective. I often asked him how the man who emerged from prison differed from the willful young man who had entered it. He hated this question. Finally, in exasperation one day, he said, "I came out mature." There is nothing so rare — or so valuable — as a mature man".

: when you've already (over)done efficiency :

... another little gem from Hugh at Gaping Void. Could apply many places. I added the graphic, since efficiency can be parsed out so simply, eh?

dlc

"... you've already done 'efficient'. We're living in a post-efficiency world now. We already know how to make things better, cheaper and faster than the previous generation. We already know how to squeeze our suppliers till they squeak. We already know how to build systems that maximize profits at every stage of the production and selling process. We're already outsourcing our stuff to China, and so is everyone else. Been there. Done that. So where does the growth need to come from? What needs to happen, in order to save your job?

THESIS:

... the growth will come, I believe, not by yet more increased efficiencies, but by humanification. For example, take two well-known airlines. They both perform a useful service. They both deliver value. They both cost about the same to fly to New York or Hong Kong. Both have nice Boeings and Airbuses. Both serve peanuts and drinks. Both serve "airline food". Both use the same airports. But one airline has friendly people working for them, the other airline has surly people working for them. One airline has a sense of fun and adventure about it, one has a tired, jaded business-commuter vibe about it. Guess which one takes the human dimension of their business more seriously than the other? Guess which one still will be around in twenty years? Guess which one will lose billions of dollars worth of shareholder value over the next twenty years? What parallels do you see in your own industry? In your own company?It's all about the "Humanification", Folks.

How does a big company [like Dell, like Microsoft etc etc] "humanify" themselves? How do they "de-commodify" themselves? It's a subject that never fails to fascinate me. That's why I do what I do. Rock on.

: twitter : blog : facebook: overlap :

... okay, inspired by Gaping Void's cartoon, with the new FaceBook's changes, and their encouragement towards a more Twitter-like status update question ... "what are you doing right now?" ... I have been wondering?

... what if ( and I am pretty sure I saw this a few weeks ago ... Twitter asking me if I wanted it to update my FBook status? ) I am coming at this awkwardly? What if Twitter was the main thing, which updated my FBook status, FBook being a little more detailed, and the 'blog was more of a dump of reading, thinking, pondering, sharing ideas and thoughts?

... I've kind been flopping back and forth on this, wondering which makes the most sense? I may stick with the new FaceBook for a bit, use the Twitter update feature, if I can find it again, and 'blog occasionally when inspiration strikes, no pressure.

dlc

: values > mission > vision : discovered vs created :

... since I keep coming back to this post by Tim I thought I'd toss it back up again so a few more folks could benefit from it. If we got our heads around this progression, we would shake our our heads at the time and energy we've spent in the past on v-i-s-i-o-n ...

dlc

ps. as Kingsley mentioned earlier this week, he is getting a weekly dose of T-Bail on Sundays between 1000-1130. You can check that out over at the Hillside podcast here.

: about delivery systems : some observations :

... OK, so I am sitting at the deck of a great cottage overlooking South Shawnigan Lake on day one of our summer vacation. You may be asking ... "why is he 'blogging at 0630 hrs on a Sunday morning just as his holidays start?" ... which may not be a bad question. Well, I thought I'd put up one last post, and then grab my pile of books and head out on the dock. Which, by the way, is my idea of a vacation, not DisneyLand, not shopping in Vancouver, barely even Whistler. On vacation I like to see no-one but family. Mine, nuclear, not even extended really. Anyways, that's not why I began this post ...

... I've been reading lots about social sector stuff, social entrepreneur-ism ( the library called the other day reminding me I have a couple of overdue books, 'How to Change the World' is one of them ). I attended a two day institute at UVic the week before last on Community Based Research, and oddly enough, being in the middle of a job search, I have been noticing how organizations present, respond to, and deal with inquiries from their job applicants. Bottomline, how do organizations think about, plan for, understand and do any kind of quality control on their 'delivery systems'... sadly, I think, the answer is ... they don't very well. How does that reflect on the social sector? Does it reinforce an underlying expectation that things can be sloppy? That they are under-staffed and under-resourced and therefore may or may not return your call, or e-mail, or request for information any time soon? Have I been guilty of that? Absolutely! Organizations I have been part of? Certainly. So what? What to do?

... here's a little experiment I did in my head as I was thinking about this the last couple of days ... it is a very limited exercise, totally unscientific, and probably biased, but here goes. Say we contacted 50 community organizations with a request. It would need to be tied to resourcing ( in my test study ), and the basic query was as simple as ... "I would like to hear about what you do, how you are doing it, and what needs you have". Could be anything from the United Way, to a small community group, to a school, to a church, to a mission, to a ... well, you get the point. In my thinking, replying or responding to a simple information request is one teensy part of delivery ... possibly even reflecting on how the organization ( as a whole? ) handles bigger, and more critical situations. Maybe even reflects on urgent vs important discussions?

... what if I had $50,000 to give away, or invest, or reward organizations that responded within 24-36 hours? Do the math, and technically 50 community groups could get a $1,000 unexpected windfall, a little mad money for the Executive Director to spend as s/he sees fit. Realistically? I'd be willing to bet that half a dozen ( 10 max ) of these organizations would 'make the cut' ... and mathematically receive a no-strings attached gift of between $5,000 and up to $9,000 to invest in a special project of their choosing. Imagine getting those letters ... "Congratulations, we did a little study, and you passed ( without knowing it ). Here's a cheque for $7,500" ... or "FYI, we did a little 'response time' study and your organization missed a golden opportunity to communicate what you are all about within 48 hours to an interested and motivated community member. Five ( or seven or ten ) other organizations like you have received cheques this week totaling $50,000. But not yours, and here's why ... ?"

... of course, financial motivation can't be what we want our social sector groups or organizations to be about. But it would point to something(s). And my fear is, it would point to some kind of lack ... of follow through, or systems, or constituency awareness, and therefore a failure of delivery. This is especially critical IF we say we are 'all about the cause' but then blame too much work, lack of staff, under-funding when it comes time ( even on a simple small request for information ) to be part of a two-way conversation. Once again, the applications and implications of this could be staggering ... how does your web site communicate? is your receptionist friendly? do you have one? are they at their desk? how does your phone system work? do you have an 'at your fingertips' information packet that can be accessed? or mailed out? or e-mailed? is there a live person someone can actually get to if they really want to, or just don't want the phone tree? Some of these barriers will be ones that have crept up on community organizations over the years, as their staffs are so very aware of what they do, but no longer can see the constituency as needing good info. Sometimes it will be a lack of vision, or leadership, or yes, resources to do something about it. But I am less and less sure, just from my own experience these last few months on the other side of the community organization equation ( out, vs in ) that 'lackadaisical' on this front is going to cut it much longer.

... I guess my question might be, and could be better phrased, but here goes ... "what do best practices look like in social sector organizations in the 21st century?" ... I've seen great and lousy, both big and small, well resourced and operating on a shoe string. There are examples of little 'mom-and-pop' groups with no money doing this very well. Then there are others, large, well-off, staffed places that are oblivious. I think we should be thinking about this ... don't you?

... I was reading an article, and a book by a local prof/educator/consultant recently and he made the point, in a academic journal cum book chapter titled 'Who Leads?' that there are four contexts, or situations, opportunities for 'kinds' of leadership in any organization: governance, administration, management and service. I will probably post something on that later. He suggests that within each quadrant, each of the four usually operated in a mini-form. So those charged with governance have to be thinking about delivery of service ... on several levels. They must govern well, for the organization to have purpose. They must also ensure that the purpose is delivered, goods and/or services if you will. They need to do that through administration ( thinking about ends ), and management ( thinking about means ). But I think we have to be more intentional about delivery ... or else we are spinning our wheels.

... OK, I'd better lighten this up a little, sorry. Simply as it is now 07:30 and I do not have any caffiene in my system yet ... a 13 minute drive would take me there though ... here's something about delivery systems for you this summer Sunday.



... which delivery system would you choose this morning?




From St. Shawnigan Church on-the-Deck ...

dlc

ps. the Times-Colonist did a series earlier this Spring on customer service. Here's a little insight into MEC's commitment to delivering their product ( service ) in stores.