The golden "golden goal"

You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.

Wayne Gretzky

So the Winter Olympics are over. It took me a wee while to get into them this time around, but I was captivated by the middle of the last week. Vancouver seems to have put on a great show.

Of course the pinnacle was Sunday night’s hockey final (with insincere apologies to any American readers). It was a fantastic match, with USA equalising with only 24.4 seconds left. Canada came back in overtime, to score the sudden death winner.

So Canada end up with more gold medals than any other nation at these Olympics. In fact they won more gold medals than any nation has ever won at a Winter Olympics.

Inevitably I think that there are a few things that we can learn from the match.

❑        Firstly, the Canadian victory was a real team effort. The superstar of Canadian hockey - Sidney Crosby - didn’t shine brightly on the night, or indeed throughout the tournament. For me Rick Nash was the man of the match. But the point is that the superstars on your team can’t win it alone. (I should note that Crosby scored the winning goal - almost inevitably!)

❑        Secondly, I love the drama of pulling the goal-tender with 90 seconds to go. It’s a lesson in concentrating resources where they are most needed. Aye, it is risky, but it also carries the hope of reward - which did materialise in this case.

❑        Thirdly, I admire the tenacity of the Americans. They pushed right to the end, never giving up hope.

❑        Finally, I was hugely impressed by the resilience of the Canadians. To come back out after the bitter blow of the late equaliser required courage and composure. We can all learn to bounceback from setbacks. If you don’t try, you won’t succeed - hence the quotation from “The Great One” at the start of this entry.

Lessons from Nelson Mandela #3

Third, last and - for me - the most important lesson from Playing the Enemy/Invictus/ the life of this amazing man.

Throughout the long years of his struggle he had one clear, overarching purpose. That's it! He used whatever strengths, talents, tactics, abilities he had available to achieve this one purpose. His grand vision never left him, although its strength may have dimmed at times when the world around him seemed hostile, bleak and dark. Yet he kept the spark alive, and poured his life in to fanning it into a country-changing fire.

How many of us can clearly articulate our purpose, let alone live it out, under all circumstances, every day of our life?

Lessons from Nelson Mandela #2

So, continuing with some thoughts from Playing the Enemy/Invictus.

I love the way that Mandela was able to challenge those around him - followers and 'enemies' alike.

He challenged his opponents, through the rugby authorities, about using the new flag, representing the new, inclusive South Africa; and he challenged his followers when they wanted to replace the green Springbok jersey. In both situations, he used his dominant position wisely - not jeopardising his influence over things that were of no consequence and not alienating people when he challenged them. In both cases, he was able to present his case on a reasonable basis, but also with an intriguing compromise.

The tradition of both sides dictated that their anthem had to be the one that was sung before rugby matches - the ANC wanted their freedom song 'Nkosi Sikeleli'; the Afrikaners insisted on the traditional, and equally provocative 'Die Stem'. The brilliant compromise was to combine them... and to convince the rugby players to learn to sing 'Nkosi Sikeli'. The version below gives the effect - although it lacks the power and passion of a rugby crowd.

Challenge and compromise - essential tools in the leaders kitbag.

One other impressive thing - in my opinion - about Mandela was the change in his attitude over the years. He developed a capacity for humility. Before he went to prison, his pride meant that his only way of engaging with his opponents was to go 'head to head', 'pride to pride' and the only possible outcome was that the dominant power would win. As time went by he cultivated a different approach, engaging with the other person, adopting a humble - but not subservient position. This frequently had the effect of disrupting the power equilibrium in the situation and changing the probable outcome.

And finally - for this entry - he developed an astonishing capacity to forgive. His lack of (obvious) bitterness was the key factor in persuading many Afrikaners that they could trust Mandela. It was expected, and would have been seen as reasonable, if Mandela had chosen to settle old scores when he was released from prison. Instead, he chose to establish relationships, heal wounds, and build coalitions.

Powerful lessons for all of us.

Lessons from Nelson Mandela #1

I said that I'd write about some of the lessons that I learned from Invictus/Playing the Enemy - I'll do some of this over the next few days.

It seems clear that Nelson Mandela is an amazing man. It also seems that everyone that he met succumbed to his charm and manner. We frequently hear about some people having 'presence'. From the portrayals in the book and the movie, Mandela had bucketloads of presence. He was naturally charismatic; he smiled a lot (there's a mini lesson in that for me!); and he took an interest in whoever he was talking to. He engaged them - even when they were hostile.

What follows is assumption on my part, so you can judge the validity of it. I think that Mandela was/is very conscious of the impact that he has on the people he meets. He knows that he can charm the birds from the trees, and he uses this to his advantage. I suspect that he also had to work hard to develop his natural ability into a skill that he could deploy to great effect.

In other words, he identified a key strength and carefully crafted it over many years.

So the question for us - do we know what our strengths are and are we actively honing them to maximise their impact?

On leadership

"We should be calling for leadership that will challenge us to face problems for which there are no simple, painless solutions."

Ron Heifetz - Leadership without easy answers

This sentiment has been on my mind lately - as I've been in conflict with colleagues, about facing up to the realities of our situation rather than basking on past glories and carrying on with management techniques that aren't able to meet current challenges.

I know that change is difficult, but we have collectively accepted that we need to change, we've committed to it publicly with our staff groups - now we need to move from rhetoric to reality.

And what about me?  Well, I need to change too, and it begins with conscious acts of letting go.  Letting go of some specific (comfort zone) tasks; letting go of control; letting go of old certainties; letting go of simplistic, unsustainable solutions to problems; letting go of moaning about the inability of my colleagues to move forward...

Instead I need to model the behaviour that we have said we will adopt - scary and exhilirating.  I need to offer moral support to those managers who are keen to see the changes happening; to offer practical advice and guidance to those who don't 'get it' yet.  In short, I need to champion the changes that we need to make, to be willing to explore the uncertainty; to re-trace my steps when we take the wrong direction; to listen to feedback - even when I don't agree with it; and to assess where we are honestly and frequently.

On leadership

"We should be calling for leadership that will challenge us to face problems for which there are no simple, painless solutions."

Ron Heifetz - Leadership without easy answers

This sentiment has been on my mind lately - as I've been in conflict with colleagues, about facing up to the realities of our situation rather than basking on past glories and carrying on with management techniques that aren't able to meet current challenges.

I know that change is difficult, but we have collectively accepted that we need to change, we've committed to it publicly with our staff groups - now we need to move from rhetoric to reality.

And what about me?  Well, I need to change too, and it begins with conscious acts of letting go.  Letting go of some specific (comfort zone) tasks; letting go of control; letting go of old certainties; letting go of simplistic, unsustainable solutions to problems; letting go of moaning about the inability of my colleagues to move forward...

Instead I need to model the behaviour that we have said we will adopt - scary and exhilirating.  I need to offer moral support to those managers who are keen to see the changes happening; to offer practical advice and guidance to those who don't 'get it' yet.  In short, I need to champion the changes that we need to make, to be willing to explore the uncertainty; to re-trace my steps when we take the wrong direction; to listen to feedback - even when I don't agree with it; and to assess where we are honestly and frequently.

G20 - after the dust has settled

What to make of the G20?

It would be easy to rant about 'too much talk, too little action'; or about the agreed package being balanced in the wrong way; or about any number of other things depending on your own particular hobby-horse.

On Thursday morning, David Arnott was talking on Good Morning Scotland's Thought for the Day, and he posed the question:

"Does anyone believe that our leaders can set aside their differences and prejudices and actually find a global solution to this recession?"

He wasn't being unduly cyncial. I think he was highlighting the difficulty that the leaders faced - with a range of competing issues to address and desires to be met.

One of the interesting facets of the G20 summit (at least the bits of it that I saw/read) was the efforts that were being made to work collaboratively. There was Gordon Brown's world tour trying to establish a workable framework for the summit, and also Barack Obama's string of meetings to work out issues and to establish relationships for the future.

I think that this is one of the hardest dimensions to leadership in our complicated, inter-dependent world - to establish a collaborative, partnership approach which avoids the loss of anyone's principles but doesn't allow for brinksmanship and 'rule by veto'.

In November 2008, Dawn Spalding wrote in Human Resources magazine:

"Barack Obama has been described as a leader with vision, who ignites passion, brings people together and wins hearts and minds."

These qualities seemed to be in evidence during his time at the G20.

BUT

If this is the high point of achievement for the G20 - and therefore for the world's economy - it will be a failure.

If it marks a new way of doing business on the global stage AND it materialises in concrete action to make our economic activities just, sustainable and legitimate, then it will have been a success.

Thomas Merton wrote:

"The biggest human temptation is to settle for too little."

Let's hope that our leaders aren't victims of this temptation.

Thriving on Chaos

I came across the quotation below in an article by Michael McKinney, writing about the current financial crisis. I think it has much wider application as well.

"effective visions are beacons and controls when all else are up for grabs... To turn the vision into a beacon, leaders at all levles must model behavior consistent with the vision at all times."

Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos

More Ryder Cup reflections

Following on from yesterday’s entry, there are a few other lessons that seem to come from the way that the American team won the Ryder Cup last week.

The principal issue is teamwork. This has been claimed by the Europeans as the decisive factor in their run of victories in recent Ryder Cups. The argument being that they worked better as a team, even though the Americans had the more gifted individual golfers.

Well, this year I think that Azinger did a fantastic job of planning and managing his approach to team-working. It appears that he grouped his players into 3 groups of 4 – based on the way that they lined up in Sunday’s singles matches, and in the paired events on Friday and Saturday. He combined is ‘flair/momentum’ players (Kim, Mahan, Leonard and Mickelson); his ‘rowdy, Southern boys’ (Weekley, Holmes, Perry and Furyk) and his ‘steady guys (Curtis, Cink, Cambell and Stricker).

I surmise that his Sunday philosophy was that if the first 4 players could build the right momentum, then they would sweep away their European opponents – this was only partly successful. (Although, as an aside, I think that the success of Anthony Kim against Sergio Garcia was hugely significant in both the outcome of the Ryder Cup and in establishing Kim as a mega-star of golf in the very near future.) By contrast the second group of 4 were all successful, and they completed the victory (rout) by each winning their matches. The crowd were really into it with these players – 2 of them from Kentucky where the match was being played. Finally, for Azinger, if his first two cohorts didn’t finish the job, then he had his steady guys at the end to grind out the necessary points.

The lesson here is about planning ahead and creating contingencies for a variety of scenarios.

But in reality, the Ryder Cup was won on Friday and Saturday. Again, Azinger worked with the same groups of 4 players, but he further divided them into pairs – mainly a blend of (Ryder Cup) youth and experience. It has long been a hobby horse of mine that people work best in consistent teams. There is a need to hold your nerve and let a team blend together. A couple of years ago, we brought a team together to implement a new software system. There were some initial difficulties and tensions, and some calls to change the composition – from within the team and from outside of it – but we stuck with it and let the sort out their differences. In the need we had a very successful implementation, in fact, the corporate Head of IT said that no other project had ever been so well managed.

Anyway, Azinger decided on his pairings and largely stuck by them. In the 16 matches on Friday and Saturday he used 7 pairings. By contrast, the European captain Nick Faldo used 13 pairings – which didn’t exactly indicate a high degree of confidence in his players (or his own decision making?).

There are other lessons that I could potentially draw out – like developing individual talents, using resources wisely, and about making sure that you have the right challenge mechanisms within your team, but enough already!

Congratulations to Azinger and his team for a well-planned and merited victory. And just for the record, Faldo didn’t get everything wrong – his choice of Ian Poulter as a wild card wasn’t universally popular over here (I didn’t agree with it at the time), but he was the most successful individual in the competition!

Rant #483

This morning I started to read a research report that had landed on my desk in recent weeks. I didn’t even get through the Executive Summary before I binned it.

The problem wasn’t the content – I didn’t read enough of it to be able to assess its value. The issue was the use of language. Maybe it’s a symptom of my increasing grumpiness in middle age, but I am thoroughly fed up with government agencies, quangos and other people who don’t directly deliver services talking about the need to drive up standards.

To talk of driving up standards infers two things to me.

Firstly, it suggests that standards are not adequate as they are. This begs a further question – is it the standards that are inadequate or the performance against these standards?

Secondly, the assumption that improvement can only come through driving up implies that there is a significant degree of reluctance from at least one of the parties being discussed.

The people producing these documents are frequently the same people who exhort those working in UK public services to work collaboratively; to develop partnerships; to breakdown artificial barriers between agencies etc, etc. Yet the rhetoric doesn’t match the reality.

In my view if they wanted to work in genuine partnerships, they would use language that fitted with that approach.

Here endeth the rant… (for today!)

Coaching the coach

I was really inspired by a course that I attended this week. It was without doubt the best course that I have attended for many years. The topic was “Coaching in Leadership”, and was facilitated by a guy called Joe Lafferty.

His style and the topic appealed to me in equal measure. I guess that the coaching approach fits naturally with my approach – although there are still lots of things to learn and develop.

During the practical exercise, the facilitators had to join the small work groups to make the number work, and Joe joined the group that I was in. Being a bit slow on the uptake, I let my colleague go first, then I realised that this meant that I would be playing the role of coach for the coach. (Must learn to think ahead a bit more!) Actually it went fairly well, and Joe was complimentary about my efforts.

During these exercises we were dealing with real issues for each of us. While I’m not going to break the confidentiality agreement, using the coaching approach with Joe’s problem triggered some thoughts for me. There will be developments in the near future – check back over the next couple of days for more info.

Confidence, competence and comfort zones - the prequel

Some further thoughts on the use of talents, and particularly in relation to the role of leaders. In all walks of life, it seems to me that one of the most important role that a leader can play is to spot and develop talents. I’m not simply referring to the concept of ‘succession planning’. Rather, I’m talking about maximising the contribution that every individual makes to the endeavour. Sometimes this is easy, as talent simply emerges in the ordinary activities. At other times, close attention and careful consideration is required to spot something in the behaviour or aptitudes that an individual shows and find an appropriate way to develop it.

Of course, the initial spotting is actually the most straightforward part. The developing and nurturing is harder – finding opportunities to use the talent; providing constructive feedback to hone it; stepping aside yourself to let the other person flourish. This can be very difficult, and it can take courage and a long-term perspective to embrace this approach.

Additionally, there is an even more difficult aspect. This is when someone thinks that they are particularly gifted in an area, but you think otherwise. You have to find a way to give a clear but tough message. As a leader you should be able to find a constructive alternative (otherwise why are they part of your set-up?), but it may take a lot of time and effort for such messages to be heard.

And finally, as a leader you should be doing this for everyone in your organisation. Your efforts shouldn’t only be focussed on the most gifted individuals, but on getting the most out of everyone. Much easier to say than to do!

The church meeting blues

I’m a member of a Baptist Church, which means that we are congregational in our governance. Last night we had our quarterly church members meeting.

Mostly it was dull – there were a couple of highlights, including feedback from our housegroups’ thinking about the direction for our church. But overall it was dull.

I can’t imagine that this is what Jesus intended his church to become.

My thinking was crystallised by one topic that was discussed at some length (the only topic that was discussed at all really). Without going into details – the deacons and pastor had made a decision which they were bringing to the meeting for endorsement. The rationale for the decision-making approach was the need to act speedily on this topic.

Nobody had a problem with the decision itself, but there were concerns expressed about the way the decision was made without reference to the church meeting. Those expressing their concerns were some of the more traditional members of our congregation – in fact, some of those with a long-standing Baptist background (unlike most of our members, including me).

So what? Well, this strikes me as an issue that needs to be carefully considered.

How do we equip our leadership team to make decisions, without constantly referring back to church meetings, and ensure that they remain accountable to the church for those decisions? I understand how difficult it is to serve in a leadership position in church (and other voluntary situations) – I’ve been there!

How do we deal with the concept of congregational governance as our church gets bigger and more complex?

But more fundamentally than any of these things – how do we have a conversation on these issues without people adopting defensive or antagonistic positions. I have a fair degree of sympathy with those who raised the issue, and also admire (to some extent) their courage in speaking up. I did not like some of the manner in which the concerns were raised. I was equally unimpressed by contributions on the other 'side' of the debate.

I was impressed by the graciousness and wisdom of the oldest person who spoke during the debate. I am saddened that this wasn’t reflected by the rest of us who took part.

The debate does need to continue – hopefully in a loving, listening and considerate manner.

Then at the end of the meeting the pastor announced that he’d received a message – during the meeting the son of our members had suddenly collapsed and died. May he rest in peace.

And may we learn to keep our issues in a sense of perspective.

PS - just before I published this I found a link to an article about leadership (thanks to Camel Crossing). It's not directly related to my comments above, but it provides some food for thought and given my interest in leadership, I may return to this in another post.

Doesn't do what it says on the tin!

This week we’ve had a bit of stooshie (several steps short of a stramash) over a legal ruling in relation to the policy of Free Personal Care in Scotland. Now I accept that this is the field that I work in, and therefore, my musings here may be of interest to no-one but me. Two key issues emerge for me from this week’s events.

Firstly, the Scottish Government was criticised by the judge (admittedly in very polite, legal code) for not accepting his invitation to attend the hearing and explain the intention that lies behind the legislation. This criticism was seized upon by political opponents as a dereliction of duty etc, etc.

I’m glad that the Government didn’t send a representative to the court. As I understand it our legal system is built around an independent judiciary, making judgement on the basis of the legislation passed by Parliament. Any move toward Government explaining its intentions in court seem to me to be a dangerous erosion of the process and could be exploited for all sorts of political purposes. Instead, the legislature should make sure that the statutes that they pass are carefully worded to ensure that the policy intentions are adequately and competently described.

In other words – politicians should do their jobs properly, then the courts can do theirs.

Secondly, and something that I’ve been concerned about since this policy was introduced. Free Personal Care is not new and it’s not free. It’s not new since the provision of social care in this country is based on assessed needs, not ability to pay. The amount that anyone is asked to contribute towards the cost of the care provided to them is then (and only then) assessed according to their financial situation. For the poorest people this means that care has (generally) always been free. The advent of the current ‘flagship’ policy has meant that the more affluent users of care services have received more subsidy from the state. I’m not saying that this is a bad thing in itself, it’s just that the language used in this area is misleading.

For my tuppence-worth, I’d like to see our politicians refraining from political ambushes and one-up-manship and asking the big questions about the provision of care.

• Do we want to be socially progressive in this area?
• If so, should all care be truly free?
• How does this interact with the welfare benefits system?
• How will it apply as the demographic composition of our population changes in the next 20 years?

Then, when we’re clear about the way forward, we can amend the legislation so that it does what it says on the tin – without the need to explain the underlying intentions.

Out of the storm

I recently read this book by Derek Wilson, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Wilson presents Luther as a passionate individual, who sometimes finds trouble by sticking rigidly to his position. (Naturally, this appeals to me.)

It’s over 20 years since I read Bainton’s ‘Here I stand’, so comparisons are difficult. But my impression from reading Wilson is that there is less of a heroic emphasis on Luther. While Wilson clearly admires him, he does show Luther in unfavourable light at certain times.

“We must feel the force of his passion because, if we do not, we have not got close to the real man.”

For me, it felt like Wilson was close to capturing the real man.

I particularly enjoyed the final section of the book when the author assesses the impact of Luther over the intervening centuries, up to our times. It is a fascinating analysis and well worth reading.

Reflecting on the book – from a personal perspective – maybe I need to be more aware of the possible consequences of ‘taking a stand’, and learn to pick my battles more carefully. It’s not about avoiding defeat, so much as being sure that winning is worth the cost.

Anyone for integrity?

I've been thinking a bit about integrity lately - troubled by a colleague's apparent inability to grasp the concept and their willingness to exploit every opportunity for the benefit of their department, whatever the greater good might demand.

If this sounds sanctimonious, then maybe it is! I know that I sometimes cross the boundary between being right and being righteous.

Anyway, a couple of articles on this topic caught my attention, over at Mark Sanborn and Harvard Business Online.

So, I've been thinking: 'Is there a distinction between public and private integrity?'

Now when phrased like that the answer seems obvious (it's NO for the avoidance of doubt). But if you re-phrase (as my colleague might), along the lines of remaining true to yourself, being pragmatic in public, avoiding discord, or recognising the realpolitik in any given situation, you can begin to see how people justify their actions to themselves.

Nevertheless - leading with my chin as usual - public and private integrity are indivisible, they always will be, wherever that leads me. And I know that it will lead me into further conflict with my colleague.

How else can we be light in this (sometimes) dark world?

Out of the mouths of fishwives

Driving down to visit my parents the other weekend, the fishwife turned to me and said something like: "You're really passionate about this, aren't you?' Maybe not too surprising until you're told that I was blethering about the public sector in Scotland - I'm not sure how many people would admit a passion for this. But I will!

In recent times I've realised that I'm more passionate about lots of things than I realised. You know, the kind of passion that displays itself as a burning desire for change/ improvement/ fulfilment ... And the more I reflect on my hobby horses, the more impassioned I become.

That's why I keep asking questions, looking for answers, needing to know the vision... and generally making a nuisance of myself.

I will keep going, and over the next few days I'm going to be developing some of the thoughts about church that are occupying me. (Reading this again, it sounds a bit like a statement of defiance - it's meant to be a statement of commitment!)

Just to get it started, I'm thinking that our church (and all churches?) should be a "church in the community, with a community in the church".

"You can be creative inside or outside of tradition. Outside of tradition, you create a new world. Inside of creation, you create a new way to do the old things much better."

Wynton Marsalis

Is it too greedy to want both?

The vision thing

I'm looking forward to our new series of housegroups - starting this week. We're finally going to look at the vision and direction that our church should be taking. Since I've been 'banging on' about this for a while now, I hope that we have a good set of discussions but more importantly that we reach an agreed way forward - and then get on and do it.

"When there is a desire to learn, there of necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making."

John Milton

Here's to "much arguing" and maybe some future blogs!

Too much church?? #2

Since my last entry on this matter, I've been mulling it over.

As a complete aside - I was once at a seminar where the speaker described meditating as being like a cow chewing the cud. I like that! And having adopted it my brain is frequently full of half-masticated cud.

So what is it about church? Well, I think that we have a tendency to fall into habits that we struggle to break (usually an unspoken form of 'tradition'). This then presents itself in the following way:

• What did we do last?
• That went well.
• Yes - let's do more of the same.
• OK

Granted the thought process is never as strucutred as this, but if we are honest - when did your church last do something totally different? Just as an example, have a look at the nonprofitprophet's idea about guilt free Sundays. Could that ever happen in your church?

As ever, I have an opinion on this - and in a large part, we are unduly restricted by our history/traditions and the type of leadership that emerges as a result. I came across a quotation from a book called "After the Church: Divine Encounter in a Sexual Age by Claire Henderson Davis (I haven't read it yet, but the title makes it irresistible!). Anyway, she says:

"While the west has shifted to democracy, Christian churches still tolerate parent-childlike structures... in order to mature we must reconnect. Not to embrace the Christian cult, but to know where we are in the plot, to take the story forward."

So how do we go about this? Well, that's something that we need to wrestle with and debate - openly, robustly, honestly and lovingly. That Hideous Man has some thoughts on aspects of this - and my limited addition to his current posting is that maybe we need to have more arrows, but of different sizes - representing different emphasis. I suggest that a model worth exploring might be to include the "offering praise and worship" arrow in Marshall's view.

But how we get there is another matter - even if it's where we want to go.

I will be posting an entry on constructive dissent in the next few days - maybe that will have some impact on my thinking in this area - more cud to chew!

why?... why?... why?...

I came across a phrase today that stuck in my mind. Brian Draper of LICC talked of being "stubbornly curious". I like that!

It reminded me of one of the next phases for my friends' toddler - the why? phase. Of course as parents we soon learn how to deal with that in Homer-esque fashion - sighing, pretending not to hear, then turning on the telly...

But the real reason for that phrase sticking with me is that I've been thinking about leadership over the past couple of days - and also the past couple of years as I was undertaking a post-grad diploma. I've discovered that the theme for this year's Baptist Assembly in Scotland is "The way ahead - leading followers, following leaders". I'll be posting more about this in the days ahead, but my thought for today is that one of the characteristics of leadership should be stubborn curiosity. Always asking questions - to understand why things are the way they are; to promote discussion about where next; to force people to think through the hard issues; to challenge the status quo etc, etc.

More to follow.