WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN YOU ARE IN A BAD MOOD?

WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER WHEN YOU ARE IN A BAD MOOD?

When I'm in a bad mood, I take time to journal about what has upset me?  I ask a series of questions ..

What is upsetting me?

What caused this upset to happen?

What should I do to resolve this upset?

How do I feel at the time of this writing?

Can I live with the upset and that which caused me to become upset?

What to do I gain by becoming upset?

What would I give up to stop feeling upset like this?

What would I gain if I stopped responding this way?

What do I want?

I then take a nap and fall asleep.  The questions, solutions, wants are subconsciously processed . New possibilities surface, and that which caused me to become upset ceases to upset me any more.

The Truth About Leadership - Part 2

You Make a Difference

This truth presumes that only leaders make a difference.  The problem with this truth is that it’s too narrow.  The definition of leadership allows everyone to be a leader at one moment or another.  In addition it doesn’t recognize personal leadership, “You leading yourself.”

A simple street cleaner being asked for directions suddenly becomes is a leader, as easily as the waitress who is asked how they would prepare a dish to their liking.  Even athletes who recognize that they are giving up on their training because it’s too hot and muggy suddenly step into their own leadership roles.  Why do leaders have to be people who motivate and guide 100’s of people to do something that improves the lives of others?

There is a question posed in this chapter, “What difference will I make?”  This question opens the discussion about intent.  While this is an interesting question for someone who is actively engaged in leadership, most leaders don’t consciously realize that this question is occurring.  Take for example the street cleaner that was asked about directions.  What difference is he making in the lives of the individuals who are asking for directions?  He is not consciously thinking about how his guidance will affect anyone else, and just as easily those asking for directions may not realized the release in anxiety.  But it happens.  The difference is small.

Most of this chapter is dedicated to demonstrating how positive leadership can improve an organization’s inner levels of piece and throughput. It fails to examine the affects negative leadership has on similar organizations.  For example, several positive leadership roles are: Modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, encouraging the heart.  While Negative Leadership would: discourage reviewing models, disparage a shared vision and focus on a singular vision, it may challenge the process only to prove that the new process is worse than the existing process, allow others to act and fail as a way to demonstrate how the current process is better, and discourage people from caring about clients and customers as a level of separation is needed in order to respond objectively.

Page 13, the discussion turns to: “Improving the Quality of Life”, “The Social Contract”, or put another way, “Whose responsibility it is anyway?”  This discussion opens into the integrity of leadership. A second question is posed on page 14, “If you are not willing to follow yourself, why would anyone else want to?”  This is a question posed in “Leadership 101” (2002) by John C Maxwell, ISBN 0-7852-6419-1, chapter 3, page 25.

As the story goes, Jerry Rice was in high school practicing football. The last exercise that his coach assigned to the team was to sprint up and down a forty yard hill 20 times. On a particularly hot and muggy Mississippi day, Rice was ready to give up after eleven trips.  As he sneaked toward the locker room, he realized what he was doing.  He returned to the hill and continued to sprint up it.  Rice realized that if he quit, he would get into the mode of quitting again and again. 

This is what personal integrity is, “Holding your self accountable.” 

The "Belief about how things should be" - How should Leaders address this?

I'd like to expound on another area of communication I thought about while at the gym today. It's with the "Belief about how things should be".  Most project managers build project plans that account for tasks, risks, dependencies, issues, unknowns and assumptions. The plan builds mitigations for each of these that are identified. Basically, in short, the plan covers the best case through the worst case scenarios.  When changes occur, members of each of the groups .. enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives and laggards have these same scenarios running in their Synthetic Experience Generator (aka head) (this term comes from a TedTalk). A good sales person will identify all these worst case scenarios and address them up front.  As Scott pointed out, a Good Leader, will develop a communications plan tailored specifically to each group that addresses the scenarios. The idea is that a leader cannot run from controversy, he must face it head on.  In change management, this is a given. Users are usually grouped into 4 categories: eager to adopt, willing to adopt, need assistance to adopt and those that refuse to adopt. As you can see, these categories are the same as "Crossing the Chasms" categories.

Strategic Thinking

Why would General Mills, originally a single cereal manufacture, decide instead of creating new cereals, it would purchase other companies that are making cereals?  What was the strategic decision making process behind that decision?  

What I have found in my years of examining companies is that many people misunderstand three (3) parts of a companies objectives.  The first is the problem (business or personal) that the company is trying to solve for it's customers.  The second is the vision statement which demonstrates what a world would look like if this problem were resolved.  And the third is the mission statement, which describes how the company intends to achieve its objective.

It is the first part that most companies can't quite articulate, have missed articulating, or leave it assumed - we are in banking, what more do you need to know?  This however, allows the company to veer way off course due to a lack of understanding of the reason why the company started initially.  This like the United States Constitution provides a basis from which all decision are made.  And, when this problem is solved, so then is the company.  

A strategic decision then becomes a debate about, "What is in the client's best interest?"  Employees are encouraged to examine the client's problem from all perspectives, and determine how best to solve the problem.  All arguments require the client's business problem to be the central issues to be resolved, not an after thought.  

If new products or services are added to the business, then they in some part are there specifically to address either the client's business problem, or the daily business activities needed to support the business processes involved in solving the client's business problem.  This is what strategic thinking means to me.  Looking at the ship either in total or in part and determining what is the best course of action to help everyone work towards solving the client's business problem.  

What do you see as the difference between leading leaders and leading followers?

There are four (4) groups surrounding leaders: Followers, Non-Followers, Outsiders, and Observers. Your question focuses on breaking down followers into five (5) categories: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards. ("Crossing the Chasm", Geoffrey A. Moore) Based on the definition of leadership, "Guiding Intent with Integrity" there should be no difference in leading Leaders vs Followers. However, as described above, there are different types of followers, as well as three (3) additional groups, that require different types of handling.

The terms Scott mentioned: [accountability, empowerment, innovation, collaboration, trying and learning, straight communication, supporting intentions, [assessment], projection, and blame] concern integrity. And, he split them into two (2) groups based on proximity to the leader - closest and farthest.

Integrity's unwritten rule is called a, "Social Contract". The expectations that all parties have against each other. When unwritten it's "word of mouth" or an "Understanding". When written it's a contract.

Exceptions on outcomes, drives the group to accomplish something, or resolve a problem. The question now is, "How much have various individuals bought into this outcome?" The answer indicates their level of participation, motivation and excitement. Participation, motivation and excitement levels diminishes the farther from the leader.

In the five (5) groups of followers: enthusiasts, visionaries, pragmatists, conservatives, and laggards a pattern emerges around expectations and willingness to change. Enthusiasts and Visionaries look for new innovative ways to merge ideas and craft unique solutions to the "Human Condition" or Business Problem. Pragmatists want something that will give them a leg up. Conservatives don't care where the solution comes from, it's foot cream, any will do as long as it does the job. And, laggards, refuse to use new tools until it's so entrenched into society that they have no other choice.

Now we can measure the level of effort needed to interact with each group. Enthusiasts and Visionaries talk in broad terms, are excited and motivated about you're work, and in return excite and motivate you to continue researching bigger, better solutions. Pragmatists only believe what other pragmatists say, thus your conversation dynamic has to change. The amount of energy to convince someone to "Try the New" increases. Conservatives require your product to be main stream, mature and in full competition before they will look at it. This requires a tremendous amount of energy, which few entrepreneurs are capable of providing. And, there is no amount of energy that will move a laggard.

Each group assess change differently as well. This is based on their judgments triggered by beliefs "On how things should be". "Shared Visions" play an important rule in motivating followers. This is where followers migrate to non-followers and outsiders depending on whether or not they share your vision. Thus when employees can't see the vision, or understand how they are part of a larger whole, and are treated as a commodity (foot cream), they loose motivation, excitement, creativity, enthusiasm, and so on.

As such, when searching for the right people for the right roles, leaders are looking for excited people who can motivate others through a shared vision of a better world. Thus the mission of the organization is to achieve this vision, and it has to flow out from the Board down to every member in the organization.

Further Incites into the Definition of Leadership

Not sure how different this is from previous posts. I think I've added a few more things that help clarify leadership.

======

The definition of leadership is “Guiding Intent with Integrity”.  Leaders have followers, non-followers, outsiders, and observers.  Followers follow the leader’s guidance towards the goal / vision.  Non-followers have vehemently opposed to follow the leader or the goal / vision, and may work to undermine the group’s ability to achieve the goal. Outsiders do not care one way or the other about the leader, the groups or the visions.  An observer may be a follower, non-follower, or outsider, their role is to provide feedback on the group’s progress towards their goal / vision.

Guidance is council concerning the steps needed to achieve the goal / vision.  Intent or intentions are the reasons driving each individual to either be part of the group, not part of the group, or work against the group.  These reasons may or may not be expressed.  Integrity is based on the Social Contract or agreement held between the leader and the group.

People choose to follow a goal / vision, due to the Human Condition.  The human condition concerns the plurality of culture and personal values, the standards of evaluation, the satisfaction of basic needs, the maintenance of cultural identity, and reasonable conceptions of well being.  In conjunction with the Change Formula, humans want a better life, and are willing to overcome their dissatisfaction with the status quo, by imagining a future that is better than the present.   In this instance the challenge is convincing others that change is needed, or showing them a path through change that improves their lives. Based on their belief that they can achieve a better life, they will either become leaders of change, follow the guidance and council of others to achieve it, or become part of a movement.

“The true nature of power isn't about strength or control, it’s about relating to people”, Bleach, (Japanese Manga) episode 250.