Chasing the Expert

Setting:
For many it’s a familiar one.  A meeting room occupied by a small group of leaders dialoging about nagging and persisting issues in their organization.

Fred “Facilitator” Funyon: Now on to item number 3, what are we going to do about X?
Simon “Big Stuff” Coleman: What we need is the right person to get in there and fix it!  That’s what we need!”
The Group: (nods emphatically) “Yea, exactly!”

Yea.  Maybe.  But maybe not.

I’m not a business/leadership guru so I approach this post with humility but the idea of finding that “one right leader” just feels like a waste of time in situations where a group of smart people or an active community already exist.  When I say that “chasing the expert” is not always the answer I’m not knocking the expert.  We need them, always will and everyone should strive to become one in an area but the idea that “the right leader” is the only way “to the right answer” in my opinion is flawed.   Especially because the “solutions” are many times right in our back yard?

A lot of times decisions are made by a small exclusive group that consist of the same people.  As smart and well intentioned as we might be, the lack of diversity and independent thinking are the two powerful variables needed in the equation for great problem solving to continue.  Once people stop thinking independently the collective wisdom of the group diminishes.  And anytime you don’t have diversity and independent thinking you get  “groupthink.”

Groupthink is a type of thought exhibited by group members who try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas.

This also happens when people in the room start to “go with the flow” with someone because that someone is some one.  Many times, the proposed “solutions” go uncontested.  It’s so common and yet so dangerous.

I tell my team on a number of occasions that over time if I sense they are blindly agreeing with me, I start to worry.  I actually consider it a form of laziness.  Seriously.  The truth is, regardless of what I say or how I say it, I’m about as right on  stuff as I am lucky. I need and want people to debate the issues until the best idea surfaces.  Groupthink becomes the erosion of impact and effectiveness.

What’s worse about this is when leaders use their influence to create groupthink intentionally or unintentionally but that’s a different post. How many leaders do you know choose to put themselves in a room with as diverse group of people as they can?  Maybe lots of leaders do (in actuality that was the set up question).  How many do that while ensuring and encouraging that all are independent thinkers too?  How is independent thinking rewarded?  That’s the key.  We give out gold stars/street cred/props sometimes to those who provide a path of least resistance for our ideas even if it leads to mediocrity.

A way to prevent this is by adding a little “PUDAKI” to your meetings and groups.

PUDAKI is an acronym for: Pure Unfiltered Debate Around Key Issues.

I find that a little (and sometimes a lot of) PUDAKI keeps the idea and solution bucket nice and full but the only way it exists is if the group feels the freedom to be independent thinkers.  A group of smart diverse and independent thinkers can usually come up with the best solutions over the long haul (I’ll write a post about that research some other time).  I have found that a group, as long as it’s diverse, has more creative and unbiased ways at solving a problem too.  In this day in age, your best idea may come from the places and people you least expect it from so OPEN up.  Make sure your peeps aren’t scared to debate.  Often something at some point made the environment feel unsafe.  Talk about it.  When this is firing on all cylnders the language of ‘chasing the expert” seems way less frequent.

I end with this quote: “If a group is so unintelligent that it flounders without the right expert, it’s not clear why the group would be intelligent enough to recognize the expert when it found him.”

Do you think groups can be trusted to solve problems?  If so, how do you maintain independent thinking to prevent “groupthink?”

The Momentum Theorem

2010 for me is about focus.  I like how Dave Ramsey puts it.  Enjoy.

“Malcolm Gladwell says it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an “Outlier.” He is, of course, right.
My mother says practice makes perfect. She is, of course, right.
A billionaire friend once told me to read one of the best stories on successful living, The Tortoise and the Hare. He says, “Every time I read that book, the tortoise wins. Slow and steady wins the race.” He is, of course, right.

Whether it is branding or wealth building, I call it The Momentum Theorem.

FOCUSED INTENSITY over TIME multiplied by GOD equals Unstoppable Momentum.

Not many people in our A.D.D. culture can stay FOCUSED, but those who can are on their way to winning. Add to the focus some serious pull-your-shirt-off-and paint- yourself-blue-at-the-football-game INTENSITY, and now you have a person who is a difference-maker. But very few companies or people can maintain that FOCUSED INTENSITY over TIME.

It takes time to be great, it takes time to create critical mass, it takes time to be an “overnight success.” Lastly, you and I are finite, while GOD is infinite. So, multiply your efforts through Him and watch the areas of your life move toward winning like never before.”

Via Dave Ramsey
Dave Ramsey is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, best-selling author of The Total Money Makeover, and host of The Dave Ramsey Show on the Fox Business Network.

Boiling Frogs

You’ve heard the parable about the boiled frogs right?  If you stick a frog in a pot of boiling water it will jump out or at least try to.  If you stick the frog in room temperature water and gradually begin to increase the water temperature the frog won’t move.  Even once the water starts to boil the frog won’t try and jump out.  Why? Because the frog’s internal apparatus for sensing threats is based on sudden changes in its environment not gradual ones.

This got me thinking about 2 things:

1.  Sometimes it’s hard for us to see the gradual erosion in things as a real problem mostly because our internal apparatus typically responds to sudden changes like departmental blow ups, major decreases in attendance, broken pipes with water gushing out of them and stuff like that.  It’s the gradual erosion of things that end up boiling the frogs though.

2. A scene from the movie “Dodgeball” with Vince Vaughn where Kate (the lawyer) is in Peter’s office discussing the future of Peter’s gym Average Joe’s:

Peter:  Hang on a second, you’re saying this place here is in default?”
Kate: “No, you’re in foreclosure. You were in default during the six months we sent you delinquency notices.”
Peter: “I thought that those were just warnings.”
Kate: “They were warnings.”
Peter: “Well, no one warned me.”

If I can’t slow down enough to see erosion in my world/team/org/church/whatever, it’s probably because my internal apparatus for sensing a problem is based on sudden changes and not gradual ones.

Are you boiling frogs?

Saying No to Good Ideas…

In his book “Good to Great” Jim Collins explains that “good is the enemy of great.”  He goes on to explain that all Great companies have a laser focus on 3 things.  He called it the Hedgehog Concept.  Read the book if you haven’t, believe me you’ll be thankful you did.  But what are the implications of being focused? People don’t talk about that in meetings.

Of course it means saying Yes to the right thing but just as much or more as it does saying NO to the wrong things.  Wait there’s more.  That means you not only say NO to bad ideas but also have to say NO to a lot of good ideas so that the great idea can prevail.  Steve Jobs put it well when he wrote:

“People think focus means saying yes to the thing you’ve got to focus on. But that’s not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully. I’m actually as proud of many of the things we haven’t done as the things we have done.”
–Steve Jobs

Have you ever felt like you were able to identify what you needed to focus on but couldn’t quite get to it because you were too busy?  It may be time to start saying NO.

Leaders and Followers

Larry Bossidy, CEO of AlliedSignal author of Execution, once wrote,

“The development of new leaders is not only the key to profitability, it is also very satisfying in terms of feeling like you’ve left a legacy, not just an income statement.  The question is often asked, “How am I doing as a leader?”  The answer is how the people you lead are doing.  Do they learn?  Do they manage conflict?  Do they initiate changes?  You won’t remember when you retire what you did in the first quarter of 1994.  What you will remember, is how many people you developed.”

Our leadership will reflect in the vitality of our followers. So what do ya say, how long has it been since you or someone asked YOUR followers about how they are doing?  Are they growing?  Are they managing conflict? Are they initiating change?  If the answer is an emphatic YES to all of those you get an A.  If not, it’s time to realign.

Simplify Your Message

As life gets visually noisier, brands that dial back to their core essence stand out by contrast.  –Pio Schunker

I love kick off meetings.  I love them because usually it’s when organizations are most focused on their core business.  There are rally cries for company wide focus on things like “service,” “excellence,” and such and such.  Over the course of the year it’s easy to drift away from the essence of what makes that organization unique and get caught up in non sense.

I’m reminded that if our brand is getting noisy it’s time to cut back to essence of who we are.

OPEN Source Leadership

What happens when you stop telling people what the vision is and allow them the opportunity to help create it?  What happens when leaders stop doing and start listening, observing and empower the masses to make a positive impact?  Results!  That’s what happens.  Look at some of the most influential innovations of the last 5 years:

The iPhone-A small device combining a phone, web browser and mp3 player.  Platform: OPEN allowing 3rd party developers to create apps for the platform.  The iPhone has revolutionized the phone and has forced cell phone manufactures to follow suit just to try and compete.

Wikipedia- An OPEN source web encyclopedia that just doesn’t provide answers but allows users to contribute understanding of topics as well.

Wordpress-  An OPEN source web publishing platform that serves 10 million users to date.  The platform is open allowing developers to create widgets, modules, plugins and more to help shape the platform.

Facebook-If Facebook was a country it would be the 7th largest country in the world.  It has an OPEN API allowing developers and users to create applications to the social networking site making the site an extension of their communication.

The Church- Mostly a CLOSED platform (that is changing).  While the church differs in form, it’s function is very similar to the innovations mentioned above in that it exists to serve a community.  Yet by in large it has not figured out, actually, I take that back I don’t think it really has valued the idea of an open model or platform yet but when it does the impact will be amazing.  An OPEN source model will allow it to focus on empowering their community to contribute and reshape their faith.  This means relinquishing the style of leadership that assumes one should have some degree of control over every part of the church.  This kind of leadership is exhausting and ultimately does not nurture a climate of momentum, empowerment, innovation and ownership.

I’m seeing a generation that has realized that they do not need titles and positions to influence culture.  They are hungry to see lives change and the message of God’s grace told.  They are self organizing and the momentum being built is astonishing.  A large part of this is being developed outside of traditional church models.  Our responsibility is to make room for them and that may mean a different approach to church leadership.

Just sayin…