Well, with some misgivings I commented, on her G+ post, that (among other things) I thought that based on my observations that the K-12 education in our country was “pretty horrible.” I also stated that, “I’ve tried to stop criticizing the education system (not very successfully) because I admit to not having a solution.” However, that didn’t deter the challenge she commented: “I’m still hoping that +Dave Kinnear will give some thoughts on how accountability in K-12 might be accomplished.”

Oy Vey! Me and my big keyboard. Will I never learn? I think she’s not really asking the right question though. I believe most people, even the most ardent supporters of the status quo, agree that there needs to be some accountability. I think the real issue is that we don’t know for sure what or how to measure in order to hold someone accountable. In other words, holding someone accountable is easy: “You will be held accountable to achieve X. If you don’t achieve X there will be negative consequences. If you do achieve X, there will be positive consequences.” What is often difficult is quantifying X, and that is the case here.

Greater minds than mine have been working on this problem, and it isn’t solved yet. Education is a highly complex problem. Consider what we ask our educators to do: teach young people from many cultures, from many socioeconomic backgrounds with widely variable learning styles. And we tend to define success here the same way we define pornography – we know it when we see it but it isn’t formulaic! So this is the height of hubris for me to think I can solve the problem or add anything new to the conversation. Still, I’ve never been one to avoid looking foolish if I have something to say. Therefore, here’s an attempt to speak to measurement and accountability; and here’s the rules I set down by which we might establish some understanding of the process.

The first rule is we aren’t allowed to say “we can’t measure that.” Instead, if it is absolutely, positively necessary we can say, “We don’t know how to measure that yet.” The second rule is we must always question whether something is merely a correlation or perhaps it might be a cause – but we should not assume it’s a cause simply because data seems to indicate correlation. Third, I don’t believe educators are any different or require any special handling from other working professionals. Finally, we have to understand that we will be wrong several times before we get it right and therefore should not expect miracles. Those excoriating folks for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) might want to consider that at least someone tried to do something whether we think it’s successful or not. This is a long time project; we WILL make mistakes and learn from them. And the school principal with whom I discuss these things believes that while not perfect, NCLB has actually moved us forward. He recommends adjusting it, not getting rid of it.

Do we really have a problem?

Depending on who you speak to on this topic (like so many controversial topics), you will hear that we are in dire straits or that things aren’t so bad or that we are the best in the world. And of course, you can find data, blog posts and videos that will support your view whatever it is. So where am I coming from on this? First, I believe in the scientific method of gaining understanding of our material world. Second, I believe we will continue to live into a global economy and will “compete” with the global community. I believe that repetitive tasks requiring low skills will move around the world to find the least cost options; and that is as it should be. So for those of you who are conservative in nature and politics, here’s an article by George Will, US Schools Get Failing Grade. For those of you who are more liberal in nature and politics, here’s an article by Nicholas Lemann, Schoolwork. For those who like statistics, the Broad Foundation has a summary here and of course you can “Google” this topic and find endless resources.

The consensus seems to me to be that we in fact do have a problem. The challenge, of course, is to define what the problem is, find the root cause, and then agree on the approach to a solution. Personally, I believe that too many of us jump directly to our favorite solution without even being willing to look at data with a fresh set of eyes (easy to say, hard to do) to see if our long held beliefs are true. Example: my conservative friends jump right to the problem being teacher unions and tenure for “bad” teachers. My liberal friends always jump to not budgeting enough for our education system driving the best and brightest into the private sector. I suspect both are right in different situations but they will not listen, really listen, to each other. Each believes what they believe, sees what they believe in the data (or assumes data to the contrary is simply wrong and ignores it) and they will not ever try to understand the opposing point of view. But I digress. In my view liberal, conservative and center folks largely agree that we have a problem in K-12 education even if we are still doing fine in secondary education. If the US is going to compete globally by providing mostly innovation, intellectual property and advancing technology then education must be a priority. Not just for those who will go on to secondary levels, but for those who will earn their living by providing services here in our own country. We need educated voters, tradespeople, and professional people so a strong K-12 education is required.

What gets measured gets done.

Is it any surprise that we had a small group – emphasize that, a SMALL GROUP – of educators actually cheating to make sure their students, themselves and their schools look good on the standardized tests? Human nature being what it is we should have expected that there would be some who would game the system. Are we really surprised that we now “teach to the exam” as opposed to working to make sure our students actually learn something. My friend is right in her post – we should not be surprised and we should question the validity of the testing we’ve set up with respect to it being goal achieving.

So what is the goal? I suspect not everyone agrees on this one. Again, speaking for myself, I think that we have to view K-12 education as having two goals. One is to prepare students to go on to a trade, or vocation. Not everyone can or should be expected to go on to secondary education.  So one education path has to be to prepare students to leave high school and “go to work,” and the second is, of course, to prepare students to go on to the university/college system. The end goal is productive, engaged citizens.

What does success look like? To me, the important thing our K-12 system has to provide is the foundation for students to continue learning and be productive throughout their lives. That requires some foundational education in math and science and communication skills. Success isn’t necessarily every student getting a passing grade. But success is making sure each student is as prepared as possible to be a productive citizen; even those students with special needs. How would we measure that? We’d want to know the dropout rate for K-12. We would have to track students after high school to see if they are gainfully employed, earning a living wage. Perhaps we’d want to know about how long they stay in one position and if they are providing for dependents. I suspect social security, unemployment figures and census data would be mined for that information. We seem to have plenty of those measurements around.

What next?

What is next is hard work analyzing all the data we have in various places, looking for patterns and correlations with how our young people are educated. Once we have a sense of how to define success and how we might measure it, we can then begin looking at what causes success. It might be things like parental involvement in the education of their children (PTA, parent/teacher nights, etc.) We might measure results on the standardized tests too of course, and we would modify those tests as we gained knowledge of how effective they are in measuring progress to the end goal. We’d also want to know how expenditure per student affects the end goal. That measurement might be broken down to show how the expenditures on administration, teaching professionals, facilities and material affect the end goal so that we can adjust budgets to put scarce resources where they belong. We’d like to know how many days the students attend school. To satisfy our curiosity about questions such as whether or not unions help or hinder, we might gather statistics about the difference between results from non-union schools versus schools with unions and see what the numbers might reveal (I have no real opinion on this other than the standard complaint that it should be easier to make structural changes, reward performance and to let poor performers go.) Remember, I started out cautioning about simple correlation versus root cause for the results, and I’m aware that all of this is complex and will require a lot of time to break through our preconceived notions. I also believe we will need to try things so we can measure the effects. Making changes and seeing that the intentions are actually carried out in good faith will be a challenge.

Accountability

Once we have established the metrics and understand what causes good education, then we have to be willing to pay our teaching professionals wages and benefits which will attract the best, brightest and most committed people to the profession. We would have incentive programs that reward the actions needed to achieve the goals – and we presumably now have measurements for those actions. In return for competitive compensation packages, the professionals will have to live in a meritocracy – just as in the private sector. There can be no guarantees except that all personnel are treated fairly as they perform – from the principal right on down to the first year teacher and of course staff as well.

Holding ourselves responsible and being held accountable by peers and leadership isn’t anything new to most people. When the result is unpleasant many people want to blame something or someone else rather than accept that they might not have lived up to clear expectations. Yet we have no hope of improving things if we don’t hold the professionals responsible for education of our young people accountable. If we haven’t done a good job at defining what success is and developing ways to measure it. That needs to be corrected.

In every company I’ve worked for I’ve had some element of my pay and measurement of success which was not totally in my control. That was considered a team effort. For our teaching professionals, there will be an element of their success which is beyond their control – perhaps a student who will not or cannot learn in the classroom environment. It is highly likely that such a student will be offset by one or more who are outstanding students and will make even a marginal educator look pretty good. It evens out over time and if the measurements we devise are reasonable, the teachers will fall into ranks that are pretty accurate to their actual performance. It’s the same in any meritocracy – imperfect but highly functional.

Bottom line

In my eyes there is room for hope that this isn’t an insurmountable task and I think there isn’t anything I’ve mentioned that is new. I’ve seen most of the above suggested measurements as well as others in various different places. The educators with whom I speak claim that such measurements are being made, new ones proposed and tried and that many teachers are supportive of the efforts. There may be some report or study that brings all of these concerns together, but I have not seen one. We have to define success, agree on how to measure it, agree on what actions are needed to achieve it and then treat teaching professionals the same way we treat other professionals and hold them accountable for mutually agreed upon goals and measurements. These goals are often called SMART goals in that they are Significant, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timely. We can achieve such goals for our education professionals. We just have to do it and be willing to pay for the personnel that demonstrate they can make the grade.

Who is wise? What are the characteristics? Who are the folks we think of as mentors, mensches or crones? Who do we think of as wise leaders? Certainly not all leaders in business, politics, education or other organizations are wise. It seems that today, precious few really wise people are engaged in public life. Or maybe they are just overshadowed by those ideological folks spouting out widsom they gained over the weekend – or through the latest polls.

Wisdom then is not a prerequisite for leadership – although it does seem to help to have some. Wise people do not always have a formal education – although it seems to help to have some. Wise people do seem to have a lot of experience and knowledge, so they tend to be “older” rather than younger. Still, I often say that a young person is “wise beyond their years.” What might that mean?

Here’s what I’ve noticed with regard to wisdom.

Humility: People I consider to be wise, that is having gained wisdom, do not consider themselves particularly wise. They are humble. With wisdom comes a profound humility. I have never heard a person whom I consider to be wise to ever state that they have wisdom. They are usually embarrassed when someone calls them wise. They do not flaunt their knowledge nor do they insist that their view be accepted as the correct view. I rarely hear a wise person state something as “THE” truth. So being wise is NOT believing that one is wise or possesses the truth.

Experience: As I think of the folks I’ve referred to as wise, almost all have wide experience in the world and so they are generally older in years – but definitely not calcified in their learning or thought processes. They seek new experiences and new knowledge and do not confuse knowledge and/or experience with wisdom. They do not let their experiences determine their future, and they do let their knowledge and experiences evaluate risk levels. So being wise is NOT considering that learning ceases when school or employment ends. Wisdom is NOT synonymous with knowledge.

Practical: Wise people connect the dots, they see the big picture. They see both the forest AND the trees. I have heard this referred to as “common sense” by some folks. I think what this means to many is that the wise seem to be able to take an abstract concept, theory or proposition and apply it in a practical, action oriented manner to our social construct. So being wise is NOT viewing things in isolation without considering the context.

Thoughtful: It seems to me that those I consider wise rarely if ever make quick decisions or take quick action. They think about things. If they do seem to make a quick decision, I usually find out that they had prepared for this particular decision well in advance. Or perhaps I will find out that they had a well thought out process for weighing the circumstances and context in which they find themselves and used that process efficiently to reach what appears to me to be a “quick decision.” In actuality, it was not reached without forethought. So being wise is NOT making snap decisions or “shooting from the hip.” Being wise is NOT engaging in “group think.”

Flexible: I do not know anyone who is wise who refuses to change his or her view in the face of data and/or evidence demanding that they do so. They are not casual about this, they are deliberate. Yet they refuse to avoid data that may disprove their view. That is sometimes disconcerting for me. When I speak with my mentors and they have changed their position on a particular topic, I usually am taken aback. Wait! You said capital punishment is justified in some cases and now you are saying you cannot find justification in any case? What made you change your mind? The wise are not afraid to be different from others. So being wise is NOT holding on to a view without challenging it periodically. Being wise is NOT conforming to others.

Self-knowledge: The mentors in my life know their fundamental organizing principles or values. They can, most often, eloquently express their value system when asked to do so. They can explain how they have come by those principles and rarely are they “given to them.” By that I mean, they have developed their own principles from deep examination of what works for them and what seems to best model how the world and people around them really work. Being wise is NOT leading an unexamined life.

Somehow, the wise people in my life – the crones, mensches and mentors – leave room for wisdom. That is to say, they clear their heads. They really listen and observe newly. They do not let past experience determine what they are seeing or hearing now. The wise leaders take the same approach that Gen. Stanley McChrystal takes, they “Listen, Learn then Lead.” They take risks, but not unevaluated risks. They learn from failure and are not afraid to chance failure. They are not afraid to take action.

When I consider someone “wise beyond their years,” I believe I’m expressing that a young person, even with limited experience in life, has figured out that they don’t know everything, that they can listen, learn then lead, that their view of the world isn’t the only view and that they can and should take the time to consider before they choose. They also get that they can choose and will have to live with the consequences. They accept responsibility and are willing to be held accountable for their choices. They will only become wiser as time goes on because they “leave room for wisdom.”

But if you’re not a technologist, a geek, who really enjoys learning about new smart phones, fancy tablet computers, the latest in computer technology and software development, then how do you decide where to spend your limited attention span and what do you outsource to your “IT expert.” This is no different than other decisions we make as executives or in our personal lives. I alternate between being disheartened over some of my colleagues and friends who simply refuse to learn basic “stuff” to marveling at the “85 year old senior citizen” who takes adult learning classes on basic computer proficiency. They do their e-mails, they may even blog, they have their cell-phones (maybe even a smart phone) and they enjoy using the internet to search for items of interest or purchase books. At the same time, they refuse to give up their newspapers and prefer to call when they can. I say, good for them.

Still, we (meaning all of us, elder, youth, overly casual and paranoid alike) are also targets for the unscrupulous “low life” spammers and scammers. We don’t use passwords that are secure, we write things in obvious places because we forget, we don’t take the time to learn and we sometimes abrogate accountability instead of delegating responsibility when it comes to security.

What started me thinking about all this was the latest report from M86 Security Labs. Read it,it’s pretty scary. Also, last week I started getting e-mail from a friend that I just knew wasn’t from him. His e-mail account had obviously been hacked and now all his contacts were receiving pleas to send him money to get out of England. Since I had just met with him, I knew it was a scam. This gentleman loves to learn, he’s in his late 80′s, is pretty good with internet research and a very intelligent guy with mostly all of his marbles! Yet he fell prey to a phisher. My Dad, same age, will never fall prey to this kind of thing. He won’t have a computer in the house. He barely can use a cell phone (but has to because he won’t pay for a land line and a cell, and the cell was most convenient when he was traveling). He tries and often fails to use his new big screen TV (which remote do I use?) and has no intention of even trying to figure out anything else. Which guy is taking the right path? Both of course. But one can communicate with his grandchildren on Facebook and the other has to sit and wait for the phone to ring or have a compelling reason to initiate the call himself.

So here’s the rub. If you use technology (and I believe you miss a great deal if you don’t) then you also have an obligation to learn the basics and also learn the things necessary for security.

Once you decide, when on the savanna or in the city jungle, that there is danger and you take action, that certainty is very useful. In our personal lives and in our business lives, that certainty locks us in, closes our minds, and keeps us in a box. The thing that is important to understand here is that we reach this “certainty” prematurely, before all the facts are in and considered. Ted Cadsby, corporate director, principal of TRC Consulting, calls this a “speed-accuracy tradeoff” that is no longer necessary. He says that, “. . . there is an antidote to premature certainty: Adopting a mindset of ‘provisional truth.’ ”

What “provisional truth” means is, simply put, we must think of our explanations of how things are as hypotheses, or theories which we always try to disprove. We have to look for evidence that our hypothesis or theory doesn’t “hold water” in a given situation and is therefore incomplete or perhaps even just wrong. This concept is important and we may be able to understand it at an intellectual level, yet when it comes to being skeptical of our own conclusions, assumptions and certainty, we seem to have blind spots. I know I do. And since my awareness has been raised, I am noticing this same “Neanderthal Certainty” in my fellow travelers. It takes mighty effort on my part to not only be skeptical of my own certitude but to suspend judgment for those who (it’s now so obvious to me) are trapped in their own certainty. Once we believe we have figured something out, we want it to be done. Yet, in our very high-speed and complex world, we more than ever need to embrace provisional truth.

This is not new thought in the sense that we have pretty much always expected our scientists to have skeptical, provisional truths. We want them to continue to find out how well their “theories” actually describe the material world. Yet we seem to often eschew that same method, that skeptic’s model, for ourselves and our businesses. The jump to certainty feels natural and good for us. We don’t often stop to think about this unless someone or something makes us do so.

I have often been that person who states what in reality is an opinion with such certitude that an inexperienced person would take what was said as irrefutable fact. I don’t do this on purpose. It happens because I study something that is complex and boil it down to what I think “the answer” is to “what is so” and then embrace that certainty. It’s a relief to be certain. I don’t have to deal with the “lost feeling,” or the “fear of the unknown” if I just make myself certain about the way things are.  Worse yet, it then becomes hard (impossible?) for me to see the evidence that points to there perhaps being a more complete answer or even a better answer. When I believe it I will see it – whether it’s there or not!

There are several good books that I’ve been reading to help me along with these thoughts. Brain Rules, by John Medina, The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer and Brain Bugs by Dean Buonomano. What these and other books, articles and documentaries has shown me is that truly there is no other way to make sure I continue to grow and learn than to recognize that my experience of the world is through the faulty set of senses and meaning making machinery of my brain. Socrates laid this out for us a long time ago: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” And what we now know is that when we let the brain lock itself down with certainty rather than provisional truths, then we cease to continue examining life, learning new things, seeing the material world in new more insightful ways and approaching other humans with the attitude of “I will learn from every person I meet.”

I hope I am no longer the person you meet who seems to be certain that they know the way things are. I am working to embrace the uncertainty and mystery, to live with provisional truths. I will take what I can for verified models of what is so and build on them with the understanding that they might not be perfect and could be refined. I will remember that when we were struggling for survival back thousands of years ago, an uncertain Neanderthal was a dead Neanderthal. But that today, a homo sapiens who practices certitude is a close minded homo sapiens and while s/he may not literally die from this condition will likely live an unexamined  life and s/he may make poor decisions. I get that such a life is not worth living. I also get that personally, I will not be anywhere near perfect in keeping my resolve to live with uncertainty in the big things. I will falter and slip into  the comfort zone of certainty when I shouldn’t. As long as I catch myself (or you catch me!), I will be fine. Of that I’m well, almost certain!

Someone posted a comment on the post “Fundamentals of great leadership, Part I,” that essentially said, “wondering why you aren’t still in that cushy W2 job, you will want to look back at what the Fundamental Organizing Principles (FOPs) for your venture were back when you were so. . .” and the post stopped there. The question is a really good one. I’m not sure who posted this or what they were thinking about when they wrote “for your venture back when you were so . . .” Still, the question is a good one if I assume that they mean this as a serious question and not as simply a judgment or challenge. So I will make that assumption. The comment could be from a former colleague, a boss, employee or stranger, so I can only answer the question “generically.”

My experience working with executives at all manner of companies this past decade since I left the corporate world is that only a few have consciously taken the time to understand what their FOPs are and how they use them to decide what they do in life. Some seem to “get it” but at a relatively “unconscious” level. A few have consciously gone through a process to figure out the standards by which they live and/or make choices. Further, it seems that many executives needed some sort of significant event in their life to cause them to take the time to review just what mattered to them. Sometimes it was a divorce, sometimes a serious health issue, sometimes a near death experience or serious accident that forced them to look at their own mortality. A few others, myself included, did not have a “sudden epiphany” but rather gradually came to understand that something had changed, that they were not as engaged as they used to be.

About two years before I left the corporate world, I began noticing that I was no longer focused on the business. It is likely that a combination of things caused me to get to this point. Perhaps it was the constant weekly commute from southern to northern CA. Leave on Tuesday to fly north, home on Friday; almost every work week. It could be that the company’s de-emphasis of the product line on which I was working finally made me realize that I needed to figure out what my next “gig” would be. More likely, it was a rather mundane and rather normal “mid-life crisis” that crept up and asked some not so simple questions, “What are you doing? What is your life about? How are you adding value and creating meaning?” At any rate, it became clear that it would be best for my company and for me to make sure that I did in fact figure that out and get on with whatever was to be next. The rigorous downsizing the company needed to go through was an opportunity for us both. I decided, shortly before the “reduction in force” that I was done with employment in large corporations and would create a life that would allow me to work “forever” at something that brings enjoyment and adds value. That pursuit has evolved into what I do today, and find so rewarding.

It is important to point out several things. First, there was no mismatch in “ethics” when I decided to go out on my own. That is to say, I did not suddenly wake up and think that I was being asked to do something that violated one of my FOPs. The company did not change, rather I grew and changed – I hope for the better. Second, I have absolutely only good things to say about the companies for whom I worked because without them I would not have gained the maturity and experience I need to perform as an executive leader coach – while earning a very nice living for my family along the way. I can honestly say that I enjoyed just about every day I had to go to work; even if the last couple of years were not quite as enjoyable as previous years, they were still challenging and the people with whom I worked were/are great folks.

What I came to realize is that I wanted to be more in control of making a difference and adding value “in the world.” I wanted to learn more about being people oriented rather than “thing” oriented – no small undertaking for a confirmed “nerd.” This past decade has been one of challenge, personal growth and incredible learning for me. And it is with a full measure of humility that I note several of the clients with whom I work have offered that I have been helpful to them – both in increasing their effectiveness as a leader and in enhancing their personal lives. That is incredibly rewarding to me.

So here’s the “bottom line” on all this. The commenter suggested I would want to go back and look at the FOPs for my venture. 1) I did that more than a decade ago when I left the corporate world. 2) Those values did not change, I just brought them up to a level of consciousness and evaluated them anew. 3) The companies with whom I worked did not ask me to violate those FOPs. 4) Once our children were raised and successfully out on their own (with their own FOPs!), I could change the emphasis on “how” I earned a living and lived out those FOPs. 5) My “new venture” (not so new anymore!) allows me to be more introspective, add value in a more “human focused” way, engaging others in professional positions, work in an incredibly wide variety of industries and continue to constantly grow myself. All very esoteric ideals. 6) On a more practical note; as a “boomer” it became clear to me that I was either going to have to be looking for a new employer every 24 to 36 months, and put up with the vagaries of the “job market,” or I was going to have to make my own “employment.” So here I am, and life seems to be much better than I had imagined. Still challenging of course, especially in the present economy, but then, why would I want it any other way?

At the end of the previous post, I mentioned the fact that we need to add the concept of “feedback” into the model. The tricky thing about all this feedback is that we are masters at seeing only what we

Positive Feedback

believe. So if we believe we “know what is so,” or “how the world really works,” or “what the truth really is,” we will see those things in the data we review. In other words, we are great at denying reality if it conflicts with our view of reality.

If we look at the results of our actions, that is we look at the data from our measurements, and if that data appears to be what we expected, then we will conclude that our beliefs and values are correct and that the “real world” responded to our actions as planned. But here’s the rub. We often do not see the data for what it is. We see what we believe, so we are often blinded to the fact that the data is suggesting that we did not see the world as it really is, but as we wish it to be.

Rest assured that (a) you aren’t the only one who falls prey to this all too human trait or that (b) highly educated people are not susceptible to this same human trait. All our science based studies show that you are definitely not alone and that even highly educated scientists who rigorously follow the scientific method fall prey to the way our brains discern and filter patterns.

Negative Feedback

What happens when the information we receive back from our actions does not meet the expected results? Unfortunately, the more common response is to assume an anomaly – a “one off” result. We automatically assume that our process, our thinking, our beliefs and our values must be sound, so nature threw us a curve on this one! Yet we now know that our brains are pattern recognizing and meaning making machines. We make up meaning and we see patterns that do not exist or have no significance in the “real world.” We often do not see things that are so, but see things as we wish them to be.

This tendency creates real difficulties in all aspects of our lives including in business. But great leaders will more readily see that the data is suggesting that their view is wrong or incomplete in some fashion. They are willing to admit that they do not know what they do not know. Gian Carlo Menotti said, “A man only becomes wise when he begins to calculate the approximate depth of his ignorance.” Yet we do not easily see or admit to the fact that there has to be far more that we don’t know than we do know about the universe and how it works.

The successful leader helps her team to see that the data points in a certain direction regardless of what the conventional wisdom claims is so. Hypotheses are tested in depth to be sure of their veracity. The effective leader agrees that “what gets measured gets done,” and is willing to make sure that not only is the measurement the correct measurement for the process but that the resulting data is actually seen clearly – not filtered through preconceived world views.

Thus a critical component of the proposed FOP model is not only that the leader do the hard work of getting right down to the very basic Fundamental Organizing Principles, but that s/he also make sure that they recognize that they have filters and try to find ways to mitigate the effects of how the human brain works. At present, I see no way to remove the filters other than to remove the human. Perhaps that is why when we leave some things to the computers, the outcome is better and improvements are made. But at least if we are aware that we only have part of the whole truth, that we are each like one of the blind men exploring the elephant (I’m sure you’ve heard the fable of the Blind Men and The Elephant by now). It is the human condition that because of how our brains evolved, we are all blind men and women when it comes to the whole story about what is actually so. Great leaders “get” that and so they seek to truly understand. Then they steadfastly pursue the goals UNLESS accurate data dictates otherwise. When a change in strategy is dictated by reality, the great leader is the one who admits to the necessity of change, rallies the team and enrolls them in the new direction. She (you) can only do this if you recognize the limitations of that computer between your ears and are willing to compensate for the buggy program!

Let’s examine this a bit. There is a parable told to young leaders about the renowned business mentor who was asked by his mentee, “How do I avoid making mistakes?” The mentor’s response was, “By gaining experience.” After some thought, the mentee once again asked a question, “And how do I gain experience?” To which the wise mentor replied, “By making mistakes.” The difficulty here with this all too true advice is that we tend to remember our mistakes and convince ourselves that they define how things will always be in the future. Some of us will do the same with our successes. Because we decide that we know exactly what will happen given similar circumstances, and because we are told that wise people do not repeat mistakes, we take actions based solely on our past and thereby limit the possibilities for responding to the present circumstance. We condemn ourselves to entirely predictable futures.

Certainly we cannot ignore the past, and we should learn from our mistakes. And we also need to be more diligent in determining if things are really different before we are too certain about outcomes. We also don’t want to make the usual mistake of “bending the facts” or ignoring the reality of our circumstances to fit our past experiences. We see it when we believe it rather than the other way around. So as we take our past experiences and make them the truth about how things will be, then we see only supporting evidence.

So what are you doing to make sure you and your organization do not cling so hard to past experiences that you are limiting the options you see. How often are you hearing, “We tried that before”? Are you and your team working to clear the conventional wisdom and look at things from a fresh point of view?

What this means is that we would do well to make sure we are choosing employees based on “the content of their character” and their ability to perform rather than filling any particular gender diversity goal. It’s not a matter of being politically correct, it is a matter of hiring correctly and effectively. And, it seems to me that those men who are in charge might want to realize that at some point, perhaps not in the too distant future, men will need the quota to make sure that they can fairly participate in employment. So don’t be too quick to “throw out the concept of quotas.” On the other hand, if we would only admit that there isn’t really any intellectual difference between genders for our knowledge workers, then perhaps we will minimize any need for the interference and constraints of affirmative action.

This gender bias thing is pretty touchy. Larry Summers lost his job at Harvard for indicating there might be genetic brain structure differences between men and women which somehow accounted for a lack of women in the science and mathematics fields. Maybe so, it wouldn’t surprise me. Yet this whole field of brain development and the nature versus nurture thing leaves a bunch of room for equivocation. The difficulty is, human nature being what it is, we cannot let knowledge be used to suppress one group of humans over another. So regardless of where you come in on this gender brain difference argument, and no matter what you think about “political correctness,” we might want to consider looking at the facts and running our businesses in a manner that ensures we use the best people we can find for the job at hand.

So my take on this is that since our jobs are moving away from physical strength based work to knowledge workers, there should be little to no difference inherent in our potential employees based on gender or orientation. We simply need to hire the best possible person for the position. And we see this at work in the hiring methods of the best retained recruiters. They hardly look at the usual “stuff” that we used to pay attention to when I was hiring. The criteria are all focused on what it takes to be successful in the position being filled. And that has little or nothing to do with the degrees a person has, or the industry experience. Rather it has to do with demonstrating that the applicant has in fact accomplished the tasks to be assigned. Extending that process even further, it doesn’t matter if a person is male, female, black, white, graduate, under-graduate, high-school only, immigrant, natural born citizen, etc. What matters is simply that they can demonstrate and I can verify that they can accomplish what I set out as the success factors for the position – and those are S.M.A.R.T. goals, essentially, that have to do with meeting the real needs of the company. All I need to do is make sure I have parked my prejudices at the door.

Stop and think about it. I could not care less if you have a degree in computer science as long as you can demonstrate that you “developed software for the consumer market according to budget and on time according to plan.” It wouldn’t matter to me your country of origin, your gender orientation or any fancy titles. I’d just want to verify that you can accomplish what I’m asking you to accomplish. In many ways, we are accelerating this movement through the use of the internet as a basic research tool. We often have little clue about the normal demographic categories (age, gender, ethnicity, economic status, etc.) when it comes to communicating with someone in the social media, through e-mail or through blog sites. Instead of letting our prejudices determine a context for the information we receive, we are (or should be) forced to think about the information itself and see if it makes sense to us. No doubt we still have our own biases toward the subject and therefore will see what we believe in the data, but at least we often times are forced to abandon the other usual prejudices.

Slowly we are developing new skills and abandoning old ways of doing things. The process will have to be accelerated if our businesses are to thrive. So I’ve decided to let go of my doubt on the need for, use of and/or effectiveness of the new things that come along and instead, see if I can mine them for ways to help make change in the way I do things. The idea of social media minimizing the demographic prejudices I might have is a new twist on how I might think of that new medium. How about you? Are you ready to make sure you only hire based on the content of a person’s character and their ability to accomplish the success factors you outline?

As I think more about it, why would I try to avoid at least the concept of making changes for the New

Ready or not, it's 2011!

Year? There’s no good reason that jumps out at me as the appropriate answer. Instead, I am being forced to recognize that this is a logical and natural time to review what circumstances I created for myself last year and to visualize what I will intentionally live into and who I will be for the coming year. This mindset gave me a whole new view of the “Stop, Start, Continue” exercise we frequently use in business and personal productivity initiatives.

I’ve also learned, over the years, that it is best for me NOT to make too many changes at once. Since the exercise has a built in “count of three” changes to make, I’ve decided to stick to that natural format. Thus as you would expect, I’m working on one each of the “Stop, Start, Continue” categories and want to make the most impact on my productivity.

I know that sometimes I hold myself back from being fully effective since I often rely on experience to inform my response to new situations. Clearly that means that I’m letting the future outcomes be determined by the past. I’m automatically limiting new possibilities for situations when I rely so heavily on past experience. So for the first change in 2011 I intend to stop applying only past experience and trying to adapt it to the new situation. It sounds so easy. Maybe so, but I struggle with this every day. I have been trained to build on fundamental principles to solve problems. History and experience

Three personal goals for the new year.

seems like fundamental information.  Yet in our business environment and in the economy we are in new territory and it’s likely that relying on our experience will be more limiting than ever before.

A bit more challenging for me is deciding what new habit to start. I’ve decided to tackle “lightening up’! By that I mean that I tend to be “working” just about all the time. I rarely take down time, read for pleasure or enjoyment, watch movies or simply relax for a couple of hours. I seem to always have a “need” to be doing something productive. Don’t misunderstand; I don’t think I’m unhappy with how I have organized my life. It’s just a recognition that there is a bit of an imbalance. I’m sure my life partner will be interested in this particular resolve. She is always commenting on the topic.

The last New Year’s resolution is fairly easy for me. I will continue to be a “life time learner.” I love seeking knowledge and working to make a practical application from what is generally an academic endeavor or “book learning.” I am still involved with mentoring and coaching university students and I love being on campus. I enjoy the classes I am able to attend. I read incessantly. So I will continue to do all that I can to expand my knowledge.

So here I am, making resolutions about the goals to be achieved in the New Year even though I mostly do not like that process. Here’s a summary:

• Do not let the past determine the future
• Lighten up and be open to down time
• Continuous learning

The more I am able to live up to these “new” expectations of myself, the more I will be living in the present – which is all there is! I will be able to create new possibilities by not letting past experience limit my view of the situation. Success will mean I am being an effective mentor and coach to those who depend on me.

How about you and your organization? Are you clinging to old business models letting the past determine your future? Are you moving yourself and your company forward or trying to mark time while you wait for the economy to “get back to normal?” (Hint, it isn’t going back to the old way – this is it and this is perfect. We only have to see the possibilities and pursue them.)

I’ve learned that I can do without constant internet connection – since at Dad’s apartment (Rutland Place – Independent Senior Living) there isn’t any readily available. He has no use for computers, the internet or e-mail and doesn’t even want to attempt to understand “that stuff.” He marvels at what his “kids” do with all the technology, but it isn’t of any interest to him. So I’ve been able to survive with fairly lengthy stretches with only phone connectivity (hours at a time until I reached my sisters fully wired home where we’re staying).

I’ve learned that the VA has more forms than “Carter has little Liver Pills.” Despite the fact that the forms are available on “fill in pdf documents,” they are still asking for redundant information on multiple forms. I think it’s great that they have gotten to the point that they are willing to use pdf and the internet so I can find the forms, but I’m wondering about the database and why I have to keep entering the same information over and over. Especially, since we are without internet at Dad’s place, we filled the forms in by hand. The other question I have is why they need to be mailed in instead of submitted on the internet. Government moves slowly, especially when jobs might be eliminated or changed. Yet these forms gave me an excuse (why do I need one?) to ask questions of my father that I had never asked about before.

While filling out the forms, I have had the sad revelation that I was basically oblivious to what was going on in my childhood. I don’t recall almost any of what Dad shared (although he did little sharing according to the collective memories of the children) and I had to ask a whole lot of questions to fill in the many forms. Somehow, I judge that I really should have known many of the answers to questions like – in what city and state were you born, what high school did you attend, what was your mother’s maiden name (! I didn’t recall it until he told me and then realized I knew it). My wife knew more about my family than I did since she spend many hours with us as a teenager (we met in junior high school). Many men of my fathers generation shared very little and are fiercely independent. Still, my wife knew things I didn’t know because she cared and was interested in the people side of relationships – she is genuinely interested.

I learned that this man, who was always robust, intelligent, careful and dependable was no longer robust, had grown careless and a lot less dependable even though he still maintains his intelligence for the time being. It was a shock to see the man on whom we all depended be the one depending on us. The man who seemed to have a mind like a steel trap, frequently can’t find the words he wants or remember telling that story five minutes ago. The man who was the epitome of self-discipline now cannot make himself accept limits or take medication as prescribed, etc. I could not help but see my future in my father’s present.

I learned that there are kind people in this world who will take care of those in need; Who will be patient and compassionate; who will be understanding and willing to provide tough love when necessary. I learned, from my father’s relationship with his cat, that regardless of how tough and independent you might be, you need someone to care for and someone who cares for you. I believe that without his cat my father would have died of lonesomeness years ago.

There are mentoring and leadership lessons for me in this time I’ve spent in Tennessee. Speaking for myself, I know that I have to be much more present to the people in my life. I tend to be in my own head a lot. Outward focus would have meant that I would likely have known a lot more about my father’s life than I do – I would have asked the questions much earlier than now. I will work to make sure I push on that growing edge of my life while not diminishing my joy of being alone with my own thoughts.

The compassion I see in those around my father these days (new friends and non-family members who work at the independent living facility) is not what I had thought or expected to find. It is authentically focused on my father’s best interest so it isn’t simply “helping” him out. The staff exercise tough love and therefore it isn’t always pleasant for him – he rebels, he is too independent and refuses to accept “welfare” in any form. Leaders of today, like the staff here, are not afraid to tell the truth as they see it (allowing for the fact that their view is not necessarily reality, just their reality); but they do so while authentically having the other person’s best interests at heart.

I think this trip has given me a new view on “Management By Walking Around,” and “Leading by Example.” With respect to MBWA, I would not walk the corners simply to see what’s happening with an eye towards correcting, improving or even simply trying to find someone doing something right (although I’d still do lots of that). I would take that opportunity to be authentically interested in my employees; find out something new and personal about their lives, what they are dealing with and how they are getting on. Why? Because in watching the staff at Rutland Place, observing the folks work at Southwest Airlines on the flight home and watching many of the passengers flowing through the airports at Nashville and Los Angeles I could see the difference in the way people responded when there was genuine interest and caring on their part. Things just worked better then, and seemed to me to be much more productive. Those who were only inwardly focused and self-interested did not seem to be having a particularly good day.

One big lesson for me is that I use technology and “connectivity” as a way to “stay in my head.” It can be more than that if I choose to let it be AND I will learn to not be so connected all the time. Oh, it’s easier, my PC doesn’t much care if I have it’s best interest at heart – although, being just a smidgen superstitious, I do speak nicely to it. Yes, this trip has made me rethink some of my interaction with the people around me. It has made me recognize my own mortality (that’s a good thing) and given me a new desire to up the anti on the interpersonal focus. Thank goodness for that – if I didn’t have growing edges to push on, it would all be over. How about you? How might you improve on your “outward focus” to enhance your own life and the lives of those around you? What should your employees know about you? What should you know about them? What do you want your grandchildren to know and say about you?