Thought Series: Manifesto for new work

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

The work we do matters. Doing is the new leading.

Sustainable development, growth without depletion of natural resources, has become synonymous with sustainable growth—doing what’s required to sustain corporate growth and profits to increase shareholder value. We hold the assumption that our responsibility is to increase shareholder value. Outcomes are generally to sell more stuff, file more claims, increase programs—the list goes on.

Change, almost always, comes too late. Post-crisis solutions gradually chip away at a persistent problem or maintain steady growth, and ultimately define the problem. Post-crisis creativity ultimately enables the problem to persist.

Our inability to embrace the emotional labor of learning, I am persuaded, is one of the greatest threats facing our society today. Investing (and betting) that post-crisis innovation is the primary turning point for an entire sector limits us considerably.

Learning to dance with uncertainty is the wisest investment we can make in our future. Embracing something that might not work is necessary to stimulate creativity and growth. What if our work (in business, government, or nonprofits) was naturally responsible for conservation not just of environmental resources, but human potential? What if each one of us could utilize business as a creative medium for self-expression toward opportunities and problems that face us today?

This is a manifesto for learning how to dance with that uncertainty.

LEARNING-1024x266.jpg

A MANIFESTO FOR NEW WORK

We need companies that empower people to think like craftsmen again.

Craftsmanship requires self-reliance; knowledge of a process—end to end.

It designs something to work within the constraints of the ecosystem it came from, demonstrating an inherent elegance and sustainability.

It adheres to guiding principles of aesthetics and function.

It requires distinct attitudes and capabilities of solving the problem at hand, but also the intellectual vision and insight to find new problems. Seeing what is missing involves the application of creativity.

It requires discipline and—most importantly—joy in working through such challenges.

It incorporates and embodies the decomposition of its primary material. It makes the problem part of the solution.

Entropy adds value.

Master Craftsmen generate and reshape the process and the result as the work evolves. Inviting surprise, they are engaged in ongoing learning and adapting.

Master Craftsmen evaluate the effectiveness of what they create, and their methods, rather than measure. They are in constant conversation with their work, embracing the pursuit of balancing agility and stability.

For the Craftsman, the process of thought happens through making and repeating; making is a form of thinking. With muscle memory inscribed with thought, they take action. In the thinking and the doing they lead.

Craftsmanship deepens with understanding.

Craftsmanship is fundamentally different from business.

Craftsmanship engages in the uncertainty of projects that might not work. Craftsmen experiment. They ask permission from the market to get up the next day to do it again. Business requires the predictability of knowing what will happen tomorrow.

Business is a field primarily defined by its ability to grow.

Business is built around the ability to create customers (not necessarily solve or proactively find problems).

Natural and human resources are finite. Sustainability, responsibility, and citizenship are preventative efforts generally built in response to a crisis point. How these programs are practiced day to day represents the heart and soul of an organization’s core values.

Business takes many creative forms.

Could a non-profit exist, if there were not sizable gaps in the systems built to serve us? No.

Could a social business exist, if humanity’s most pressing needs were being met? No.

Theirs are businesses built upon the failure or collapse of an ecosystem.

They observe signals of failures and are inspired into action by the crisis in the present. Their innovation is byproduct of the emergencies they perceive.

Crisis gives all organizations permission to innovate. But living in a state of crisis is not a sustainable state of being.

When innovating out of crisis is the leading growth strategy, whole industries are diverted from their unique potential to go far beyond the opportunity of yesterday’s disaster. Instead, crisis defines them.

Could a venture-backed startup exist, regardless of a crisis? Yes.

Compared to other structures focused one and largely defined by crisis, business has incredible opportunity for flexibility. Yet it tends to adopt the straightest most reliable path toward growth it can find.

When economies are on the rise, innovation is actively encouraged and incubated.

The encouragement to think creatively and to anticipate needs are among the key differentiators between companies lauded as outliers or merely lucky, and traditional enterprises.

Leaders of creative companies embrace uncertainty. The entire premise of their organizations relies on their ability to learn and do.

While business finds success on the basis of balancing innovation and the status quo of steady growth, it misses out in not investing its energy into the craft of doing.

Simple reactivity (to markets, to competition, to crisis) can no longer be admired as the holy grail of steady growth. We must be more agile and responsive.

The craft of doing and learning are necessary for progress. In doing, we create new understanding. This understanding leads to shifts in behavior. In the doing we learn. In the doing we lead.

Traditional enterprise has failed to develop the discipline to split its attention from the din and crisis of the present. Strict expectations of growth have failed to encourage a diverse set of models and initiatives centered around the creativity needed to find the problems of the future.

Future leaders must anticipate needs.

Leaders of work of the future need to find balance between a set of new, previously unimagined problems, as well as the next evolutions for the present day’s most persistent social and environmental issues.

The next wave of leaders must include a community of those who choose to stop growth for growth’s sake. These are innovators who refuse to wait for the ticking bomb, or the building to collapse, or the ground to open up.

Leaders of new work embrace the proximity of problem solving in order to increase the potency of their solutions. Not only are these leaders carrying out change based on the information they are receiving, but also contributing to a new understanding. Let’s call these bright Counterpoints.

Counterpoints gain capability to make change in the world by first gaining awareness to their own uniqueness.

Counterpoints imagine a future that is tailor-made. They envision an ideal and backwards from the big vision.

Counterpoints are visionary and concern themselves with the study of systemic interventions.

They envision implications.

They generate scenarios.

They plan strategically.

They balance theory and practice.

Who are they?

Some are saving children.

Some are feeding the poor.

Some are housing the homeless.

Some are curing diseases.

Some are donating goods and services.

They are not necessarily in business.

Leaders of the past are fueled by reaction to these circumstances and as a result it defines them. Leaders of the future know they must be engaged with the crisis of the present, but also be responsive to crises of the future, ones that have yet to be defined.

These leaders are bright Counterpoints.

Counterpoints ask, “What if?” By embracing projects that might not work, they are facilitators of change.

Counterpoints will strike a balance between reactively embracing growth as a goal, and responding with a long term perspective of conservation.

The next generation of organizations must welcome and help develop these new leaders.

The individual practicing their life’s craft is the new leader of the future.

Purpose and creativity.

Prevention and reactivity.

Doing is the new leading. The world needs companies filled with craftsmen mindsets, now more than ever.

Welcome, Counterpoint.

We need you.

We’re glad you’re here.

The work we do matters, more than ever before.

Thought Series: The value of the intolerable

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

IMG_9.jpg

Over the last month I’ve been asked to speak about my research findings. More and more, however, I’m noticing that people want tips, checklists, or recipes for success, getting mindful, or whatever goal they are after.

TIP: If checklists really helped, all of us wouldn’t still be struggling so much.

Below is yet another list…of points to consider. These are key takeaways from a study I did on values based leaders and how they manage scaling their organizations. Yet, the one concept that binds them all together is: tolerance.

Leaders that are a cut above have the ability to sit with and manage great intolerance. We go to trainings where we are told “it’s ok to get uncomfortable” or “it’s safe to make mistakes.” But people are coming with their team, where they will go back to an environment where they feel unsafe.

Question: How many trainings have you been to where people were actually uncomfortable?

I’ve only been to one. At Microsoft. Lisa Brummel brought an organization in to help change the culture from being dominating to being more collaborative.  One of the first hours of this training attempted to give vocabulary to the concept of feelings. Among a sea of engineers, where feelings were seldom acknowledged when negotiating tradeoffs for launch dates, vocabulary was limited. People could only identify four terms: happy, sad, mad, afraid. When it came time to identify one of these feelings publicly in conjunction with an exercise we were doing, several people got up and left, some shouted, others boycotted the day. The unspoken feeling was fear, that would be used against them in performance calibration. Since then, the training has been adapted and performance calibration has been revisited.

The point here is that it is intolerable in today’s society to register discomfort with anything. We must be happy, always know the answer, and demonstrate competence even while we are learning something new. restrictive environments like this squash motivation, ability to innovate, and individual creativity.

How much more can you tolerate?

GETTING PURPOSEFUL:

THERE IS NO PLAN. IT IS A WAY OF BEING.

Leaders that are highly valued among employees and even markets, have a great capacity to create the conditions necessary for innovation and ongoing experimentation. Here are some key takeaways from values-based leaders.

1. You Matter, Whether You Like it or Not.

A person’s consistency in word and deed sets the tone and depth for relationships, for how work gets done, for what is permissible. How you are narrows or broadens your prospects. If you take action and you’re committed to making a difference–great. If you’re one of those that decide that ‘well I don’t make any difference I’m just one of 7 billion people–what difference do I make’ (and you live your life that way) that’s the impact that you are going to make.  You know that people who don’t care are less fun to be around, and those that want to make a difference, do. You will have impact one way or another. How do you want to show up?

2. Create a Vision from the Future, Step into that Possibility Not Knowing How to Create It

Most visioning projects start off looking at the past and the steps that got them where they are. They then develop a series of steps to get them to their future. By identifying your future, and beginning to move in that direction the ecosystem will provide it. Each person individually commits to the future. If someone is just going along for the ride, when things get tough it makes it hard to have a breakthrough. What future do you want?

3. Individual Commitment.

All individuals have to commit to the vision. We, as individuals, have the power to create. Each interaction we engage in creates our future. We have the choice to determine the conversation, in that moment, of who we are going to be. Creativity lives at the level of each individual. Groups do not create. Autonomy is only as robust as the level of personal responsibility. There is a certain magic available to people when they operate like they are responsible for their own universe. There are rewards to living life where you consistently choose, and are held accountable for choosing, to serve your team and your community. What is it you are up to? Making a living or a life? What inspires you?

4. Develop & Celebrate Your People.

Most jobs are hard, that is why they call it work. I am not sure whether I would want to work with the type of person who would be willing to endure a job only for the pay. Observe each other’s behavior as they go about aligning to the vision. Teach the team to give and accept feedback during the next team meeting. People truly committed to the vision will accept feedback of their peers. The group develops into a supportive team of coaches that holds them accountable for making a difference.

Thought Series: The wasteful scam of sorting people, stop wasting talent

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

 
 

“Sorry, there just wasn’t enough in the promotion budget this year. We’ve already allocated all the slots.”

“So many people wanted the Director position. We had our pick and such competition makes us a world class organization.”

“You’re on the bench for the next opportunity, but there is little movement at this level. Once people get here, they dig in.”

Speak with the well-intentioned organizational development folks, the managers with open positions, and executive coaches what makes good management material and who is likely to get fast-tracked, and they’ll say work is a meritocracy. There is only so much room as you climb the pyramid.

Or, they might point out that their job is to help the organization succeed, to beat the competition, to take on the burden of choosing from world-class talent.

All of these responses are dangerous, unhelpful and irrational. In a world where people get picked based on performance, this sends a bit of a mixed message.

As millions of people come to grips with their annual review, I’m hoping that they understand how little their results actually have to do with their ability to move upward.

When you’re starting out after college, and throughout the rest of your career, a single skill rises above all the others when it comes to hiring and promotion: Leadership.More than 80 percent of responding employers said they look for evidence of leadership skills on the candidate’s resume, and nearly as many seek out indications that the candidate is able to work in a team.

Team collaboration drives leadership. Collaboration results in higher motivation and morale stemming from greater trust between individuals and a sense of belonging to a community that is working toward shared goals.

Leadership drives relationships and trust. Trust in our public institutions, industries, and leaders is taking a severe beating. In the business world, the negative consequences from lack of trust are too numerous to list here. Probably the most devastating, however, is that it creates an “everyone for his/herself” attitude throughout the organization, especially at the lower levels. When me trumps we, individual development suffers.

If we’re a front line employee and we don’t believe senior management will do the right thing by us, we have no choice but to look out for ourselves. When we put our own agenda ahead of the organization’s, any chances of the company achieving its vision of winning go right down the drain.

“If you were on a team of 10 people, you walked in the first day knowing that, no matter how good everyone was, two people were going to get a great review, seven were going to get mediocre reviews, and one was going to get a terrible review,” said a former software developer. “It leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies.”

Amazon, another technology giant and one of many technology companies with similar management practices, reports a “bruising” workplace. Employees appreciate working with smart colleagues but criticize the company for a lack of a work-life balance.

It is not due to a shortage of talent that there is a lack of leadership opportunities. Leadership should opportunities exist, I believe, to create a learning experience for both the team and the leader. When you develop others, you develop yourself. When teams grow and learn, organizations grow and learn. This is the sentiment behind a rising interest in developing “learning organizations.”[vii]

But growth requires change. Change can involve risk and trying new things. Not all of them will work. Part of engaging in creative thinking is actually investing in the discipline of thinking. Dedicating time to think of new ideas doesn’t guarantee they will be good. Some will work, some won’t. While this isn’t new information to anyone, organizations generally bend toward efficiency. Time invested in generating ideas that don’t move the needle forward today doesn’t contribute to being efficient. Only the good ones are rewarded and given attention. When we adopt policies or processes that punish people because they’re making mistakes, what’s the lesson?

If you get ahead for years and years because you were blessed with luck, it’s not particularly likely that you will learn that in the real world, achievement is based as much on how you show up as it is on natural advantages. In the real world, leadership roles and the senior VP job go to people who have figured out how to care, how to show up, how to be open to new experiences. Our culture is built around connection, personal magnetism, learning and the ability to not give up when things are hard.

But that’s not easy to sort for in organizations, so we take a shortcut and resort to trivial measures instead.

What if we prioritized leadership by doing?  What if we prioritized leading by example? What if we prioritized doing the work, setting an example, living the brand—not living to work, but being a teammate? I’m not talking about abandoning your existence to the company by adopting the Marissa Meyer 130-hour work week. I’m talking about the person, that while at work, is present for themselves and for the team. That is different than being present for the organization. They are not just in it for themselves. They are not contributing to a world where someone else has to fail for them to succeed. What if we fast-tracked those employees, and made it clear to anyone else willing to adopt those attitudes that they could be celebrated too?

What if you got picked because you were resilient, hardworking and prepared to engage in continuous improvement? Isn’t that more important than rewarding the employee who makes their numbers but succeeds at the expense of others, or who never takes the time to develops others?

Before we promote the stars in our teams, perhaps we can promote the employee who takes time to keep everyone in the game, including themselves, because it takes both kinds of people to beat the competition. This isn’t about taking the last kid to get picked for kickball and giving him a ribbon. This is about acknowledging the diversity of skills that it takes to compete and win. The star player can’t be a star without several assists along the way. There is no need to tell everyone they are a star. The fact is, everyone has development areas. Just tell them the truth. Tell them that every single person who has made a career of being the best (every single one of them) did it with hard work and motivation.

At an individual level, work is for personal fulfillment, for maintaining a standard of living and providing for a family. It is for intellectual stimulation. Work means many things to many people. Work, journalist Studs Terkel wrote, is about the search “for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying.”[ix]

Business is more than creating customers to buy things. It has to exist to provide a societal good. Therefore, our work has to exist in the context of providing a societal good. Taken collectively we have to think of our work as a net positive for society in some way.

We’re not spending nearly enough time asking each other: What is Work For?

Let’s talk about work and figure out what we’re trying to do, and why.

Thought Series: What smooth jazz can teach us about innovation

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

 
 

Kenneth Bruce Gorlick (Kenny G), in addition to playing the longest sax note, has sold 48 million records. There are those that will say other artists are more authentic or talented. However, there is no denying he was doing something right–forty-eight million records. He revolutionized jazz by creating a boiler plate template. Others did this too, he was just more successful at it.

Smooth jazz as a construct, brought money into the jazz industry like it had never seen. Kenny G was the best selling jazz musician of all time. His template, along with some best selling albums, created a money printing machine. He invented, for lack of a better metaphor, the $25 WordPress template for the music world. This probably makes Thelonious Monk the broken, non-deployable web site that you continue to go back to time and time again–because his is work just that good.

The template created a low barrier to entry–for the customer. While technically very gifted, there’s little that is controversial or thought provoking about his work. His music is appropriate for any venue: a wedding, getting the kids to nap, an elevator…. When Kenny G was popular other artists opted for the template in order to make money.

Among music fans, the question gets tossed around: If it’s so ubiquitous–so everything to everyone–is smooth jazz really jazz?

Right now, we are in the era of “smooth design” and “smooth products.” This translates to “smooth leadership.” Everything is very clean….very Apple-esque. It’s acceptable to everyone. It works. But, it isn’t interesting.

This happens with leadership too. “Smooth leadership” is when the leader opts for industrial model, plug-and-play tactics proven to work (from their pantheon). GE‘s calibration system was popular for a while, so Ballmer adopted it for Microsoft. It worked (said no manager, ever). It served a purpose from an operations perspective, but ruined cultures.

What do you get from smooth leadership? The same products you had before, only more efficient, cheaper, using less resources.

Up until now, a CEO was doing a good job if the company met its financial targets, the Board was happy and shareholders were rewarded. The formula of getting a good education and landing a good job continued to play out, further supporting the conveyor belt relationship between education and industry. Leaders implemented traditional business school formulas for economic success, profits increase. This myopic association reduces education to a mere employment agency.

But after a while, the job gets route. People start to feel a void every day at the office. Employees, go through the motions, doing just enough to earn a paycheck so they can find some contentment in life outside the office. The job starts to feel like factory work—precisely what our parents and grandparents wanted us to avoid!

But when is a product or brand going to stand up and be Jimmy Hendricks (only 24 million records)? or Prince (only 39 million records)? and say, “I’m willing to sell half as much, but I’m going to be unique.” This attitude made him a legend.

There is no “Kenny G experience.”

There is a very definitive “Jimmy Hendricks experience.”

The wheel doesn’t need to be reinvented in every job. This isn’t about “creating great art” or being the “Jimmy Hendricks of product development, UX, or leadership.” This is about trying to innovate within a space, versus allowing the space to dictate the boundaries.

New ideas belong on a canvas, not constrained by a box.

TO CONSIDER:

  1. Are the ideas in your organizations doing something useful or different?

  2. Is creativity coming in last in the execution queue?

  3. The easy way is not necessarily the best solution.

“But, Apple did X. Google did Y.”

Perhaps, but these companies initially took risk and were innovative in order to achieve their simplicity. Don’t confuse ubiquity with being unique. They were unique and became ubiquitous. To follow them is to simply ride the coattails of what has come before and hope for crumbs of their revenue.

We are trying to get people through the funnel so fast, that we aren’t engaging them (as customers, employees, suppliers). Even if you are tied up in the data, the bounce rates always come back to “what is the story we are trying to engage them in?”

So take a stand – what story are you in?

Thought Series: MVP V 1/MVP: MOST VALUABLE TO MOST VIABLE IS THAT OK?

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

IMG_8.jpg

THE WILD WEST

In the early to mind-90s, no one started their career saying “I’m going to do…the Internet.” People’s talents, from a variety of disciplines, found a way into this space because the internet needed so many different perspectives in order to help define what it was going to be. It wasn’t just a phone book, or an abacus. It is now enmeshed with everything that we do.

We have tackled the easy stuff.

We figured out the phone book (directory/search). We built the address books (personal information management). We figured out how to reach out and communicate with another person (instant messaging). We learned how to distribute complex files across space so others could view it like they do on television (audio/video streaming).

What we haven’t tackled, or we tackled it early on and lost, is the storytelling aspect of why we are meeting these same basic needs through this different medium (meaning, connection, purpose).

All of the places I’ve worked in–from Seth Godin’s lab Yoyodyne (permission marketing), Yahoo (making web easier to navigate), RealNetworks (audio/video streaming), Microsoft’s Office and Windows (productivity of the individual and organization)–crafted the first generation of their respective stories. After a while, people in the organizations (and sometimes the leaders) developed an attitude of having figured out the internet. When that first flywheel to revenue was figured out, people stepped back with their hands in the air, they stopped tinkering. They stopped learning.

There’s was a sense that “we’ve all gone and done what we said we were going to do,” “we’ve figured out these patterns” and “we know pretty much how people behave.” Next.

It’s Been Done Before

It is interesting to think about where we were in another art form, such as film. In 1912 Nestor studioswas founded. It is considered to be the first comprehensive, integrated movie studio in Hollywood. They started producing westerns and did them with such regularity that the genre turned into a business model. Twenty-one years later, we get films like King Kong. Compare this to the King Kong we have today…and there is no way we could presume where things were headed.

EARLY EXPLORING

Contrast this with the early internet. Let’s look at 1994, and the invention of the <blink> tag. This was the time when online content publishing really getting started.

<blink>What an awesome invention.</blink>

That is a blink tag. It was invented in 1994. Lou Montulli, often credited as the inventor of the blink element, has said that he considers “the blink tag to be the worst thing I’ve ever done for the Internet.”

This is a very interesting statement, and an important one, for a few reasons. First, when it came out, the tag was used everywhere–it was very popular–helping industrial grey pages, to have something of interest on them. More importantly, the HTML protocol (the code enabling pages) was not meant to do half of what it was used to do. Complex layouts were not possible. For example, tables were not meant to be supported by HTML. All this was pre-CSS. JavaScript was new. ColdFusion had no documentation (I should know, I programmed the first database for the Kaufman Foundation.)

It’s hard to think that just twenty years ago, the web was built upon series of workarounds. It was frustrating, but it also left a lot of room for innovation and creativity. This was a time when there weren’t a lot of best practices. Beveled tables, a background color other than grey, and something compelling enough to click on were big deals. You were allowed to do crazy things just to see what would happen. When something is in its infancy, you are allowed to experiment–because no one, not even the big brands, knew what they were doing.

Remember the falling snowflakes and the whale that could follow your cursor?

These things were neat (at the time). Today it is a distraction. But early on, this was the very simple layer added to sites to let the user know that the browser knew you were there. These were the first attempts at point to point connection with users–a kind of greeting.

Workarounds like this continued until Adobe Flash came out, enabling better design. There was a low barrier to entry and interopability with other tools–a virtual sandbox enabling designers to do things they couldn’t do in HTML. There was a time when all the sites winning design or brand awards were Flash sites.

When Flash was big, animation became more and more popular. Everyone had to had “something moving” on their site. A company called Icebox was formed to capitalize on the inherent “freedom of the medium” which the founders felt stifled creativity of writers due to the confining restrictions of the studio system and traditional media. People thought animation was solved. There was a belief that full length features would be possible using Flash.

With all these tools and experimentation, there was also a lot of garbage. Everyone had a web site, not all of them were good. Some were using 30% of the size of the screen. Some had piano music starting as soon as the page loaded. Some were full of rainbows.

The problem with Flash is that is allowed everything, by everyone–it became a kind of corral for people to gather and wallow in form (over function). The rest of the internet moved on. Soon, there were sites that could only be viewed with Flash. What had been a great enabler became a barrier. After the great party of connection and design, people needed more than a head counter to tell them what was going on these sites.

These sites were not cheap. A full Flash site for a company was a serious investment. After a certain point, clients were wondering what they were paying for, and the now standard question of “It looks great, but what’s the ROI of this effort?”


The shift went from interactivity to being data driven. Where are people from, what are their demographics? What do they buy? Data has revolutionized how we view and understand interactivity.

THE PROBLEM?

We use this data to make incredible numbers of creative decisions for us. We look at that data and don’t draw any other conclusion than “that worked, we should keep doing it”, or “looking at someone else’s data and saying that worked for them, it should work for us.”

An example of this is the notion of “page rank.” Once google came out with the notion of rank, companies were scrambling to be guaranteed a certain rank – they still throw chicken bones after SEO efforts over opting to have more face to face conversations (real interactivity) with their customers in order to strengthen their relationships the old fashioned way.

Looking at data and best practices are helpful – to a point – but they drive too much of our thinking and conversation. Good interactive design gets pushed further and further down in the conversation, rather than having a seat at the table.

Predictive analytics is now the hot topic. Tableau and other companies do wonderful things. Many of them have reduced workflow significantly, reducing work for the repetitive tasks we need to shorten.  Unfortunately, this mentality has been extended to such a degree that we apply frameworks such as rapid deployment to virtually all design decisions.

We should be making design and product decisions around content and experience, not around frameworks or quick deployment. This pattern give us thought shortcuts. Sometimes these are helpful–like when you deploy a virtual machine that has your whole environment on it. That saves time.

But it also means that that the “MV” in “MVP” goes from “most valuable” to “minimum viable.”

The minimum viable product (MVP) approach has its place, particularly when building applications or performing actions where you want technology to be in the background (executing a search or moving money). But should these actions be so thoughtless that we stop thinking about story, and art? When we forget about the quest we are after, some else picks it up and does it better.


Extending the minimum viable mindset to a wider array of thought processes and taking thought shortcuts where we should be innovating and taking risks…that is where we run into problems.

TO THINK ABOUT…

The photo below is of Stanley Kubrick speaking to an actor on the set of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick wanted everything shot by candlelight. This required a special lens. On top of his already huge budget, he went to Paramount and asked for a specialty lens. When they initially rejected him, he said: “I make the films, the films don’t make me.”

As with most experiments, the initial reception was mixed. One of the reasons for the harsh critical response toward 2001 upon release comes from the fact that several popular critics of the time approached this film with an aesthetic expectations stemming from classical Hollywood cinema. Their complaints were all about how the film did not follow Hollywood conventions, and it frustrated them.

This example is an instructive way for us to think about how we work with the technology currently. We are allowing the restrictions and patterns to dictate how we should explore, to inform how we should do things.

We have to start exploring more.

Leaders have to provide the conditions for people to think.

We talk about the “sink or swim” or “dog eat dog” world we live in but fundamentally miss the point of evolutionary theory. It is not about there being two items, and one lives and one dies. It is that in this particular environment, this thing can thrive. In this other environment, another thing can thrive. They don’t cancel each other out.

When people do user testing and they look at A or B, what if C was the solution? The problem with most testing is that people never get to C because they either aren’t asking the right questions, or they aren’t looking past a very narrow patterns of operating in low risk.

Taking creative risk, is anti-pattern. Taking risk is always going to look broken and be a bit clumsy at first — the end result is probably not the kind of thing that is going to get you promoted. Remember those falling snowflakes, and eyeballs that followed your mouse?

Swiping on Tinder, or clicking tiles on an iPad would not have been possible without that initial experimentation.

We have it in us to ask the right questions. If we are not asking these questions of ourselves or our clients, we are not doing our job–we are being programmed by our patterns.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

Albert Einstein

Never let the fear of striking out get in your way.

Babe Ruth

Thought Series: The need for creative questions

INNOVATION /CREATIVITY

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

IMG_5.jpg

Other disciplines make for great inspiration and sources of inquiry.

In a diner, for example, food needs to hot and fast. There is no room for personal expression.

But, consider modern art on large canvas. Why do we eat food on plates which are determined by plate manufacturers and not chefs?

And, think about how smells influence us. What if you had salt, fat, sweet, protein….and nostalgia?

Experimentation is key, but costs time and money. What if you took your slowest night and everything on the menu is an experiment, getting the customers to participate in your discovery process?

What if what fed you in your gut also stimulated you in your mind?

Grant Achatz is an American chef and restaurateur often identified as one of the leaders in molecular gastronomy or progressive cuisine. In 2007, Achatz announced that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 squamous cell carcinoma of the mouth, which may have spread to his lymph nodes.The chemo process temporarily took his taste buds.

Alinea Revisited – A Life Worth Eating “The dish never got boring. Since this was a shared dessert for three people, each person picked and played with different combinations of ingredients making every bite taste different. This is the most memorable dessert I have ever had.”

Responding to what would have potentially crushed others, he prepared dishes by drawing them first and handing them off to his staff to interpret. “It’s not in here (the mouth), it’s in here (the mind).

Slowly regaining his sense of taste one flavor at a time revolutionized his ability to create.

At what point do you break out of the rules that go you where you are, and start to express your own point of view? 

At what point will you destroy what you know to begin a new train of thought? 

Why Learning to Learn Well Is Fundamental to Our Survival

NUMBERS & NERVES

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

IMG_39.jpg

You can’t blink now without seeing articles on the pace of change, exponential growth, or the need to innovate. Over 60% of all executives now believe disruption will hit their industries hard in the next year. Artificial Intelligence will only accelerate this momentum. The majority of organizations have recognized that company culture, as it impacts decision making and strategic integration, is a major driver of successful transformation. People know change is coming, but do not have the skills and support to drive the transformation. It doesn't matter the industry - management consultingfinancial serviceseducation. Everyone's at risk.Then, there are these old chestnuts...

  • The only constant is change.

  • People don't resist change; they resist being changed.

  • Change before you have to.

The problem is that organizations of all sizes can be challenged on how to cope with change. All wrestle with their reality and go through denial about the need to change.Enter the field of change management.Change management has its origins in the 1960's when business was much more predictable. As a formal discipline, it has been around since the 1990’s. However, references to change and change management can be found in the psychological literature more than 40 years earlier. Psychologists described “change” as the unfreezing, moving, and refreezing of thoughts or behaviors. These developments described how people internalized change and their experience with it, though the researchers did not apply these concepts to an organizational setting.In the 1990s the topic of change and change management was applied to organizations, and managers and leaders took notice of the new groundswell of articles and books such as John Kotter’s “Leading Change”, and Spencer Johnson’s “Who Moved My Cheese”.Most change models are still based on old-school thinking, tools, and techniques. No wonder 70% of all change efforts fail. In the past, leaders had months and years to implement change. Now, change needs to be understood and addressed at the moment while it is occurring. The response to change needs to be implemented in days and weeks.Three Barriers to Learning to Learn Well That Impact Our Ability to Respond to ChangeHere are three barriers to learning, common behaviors that lead to beliefs we all succumb, that I believe account for the failure of our ability to contend with change:

Barrier: We are biologically wired to be afraid of uncertainty.  

Belief: Change is bad.

When confronted with the choice to continue with the status quo or accept change, few us will opt for change. We like to stick with what we believe works.

Behavioral psychology explains why we think change is bad:

  • Change is a threat.

  • Threat leads to a loss of food.

  • Loss of food leads to death.

So you notice things changing in the world (the robots are coming, the politics are more polarized than ever) and you're one step to it all being all over.So we learn a trick or two that works and we use those tricks over and over.

Inertia makes it hard to turn. What gives us this momentum, gives us power: that's the power of scale. Scale is a force. When we have committed our lives to going in a straight line, and a revolution comes along requiring us to take a turn, we don't understand the new strategy and paradigms it's creating, or the tactics it requires, we get left behind.CONSIDER: What is shifting in our culture is the death of the industrial age. That is at the heart of all the shifts going on. Having a solid understanding of strategy (understanding the systems in play), tactics (the skills and capabilities required to manipulate strategy), and emotional labor (caring enough to really fail at something) are how we make a difference in the world. There's so much confusion now in the business world, a world that 50 years ago had virtually no confusion, about these three concepts, but we rarely separate them into these three different groups of problems and work them together

Barrier: We accept artificial replacements for actual experiences  

Belief: Change Is Fixed and Linear

In order to make sense of complex concepts, we use models to simplify our understanding. We seek templates, models, and prototypes versus gaining direct involvement with the problems we are trying to solve. In doing so, we give up proximity to the particulars in favor of distance and simplification.

When describing complexity, most change management frameworks assume that the process of change is linear.

Here are several examples.

They all have a beginning, middle, and end because that is how we understand things.

Losing proximity to the nuances of the problem we are trying to solve and the need for simplicity in how we think run counter to the ongoing learning that needs to occur when reckoning with change. We can no longer give up proximity to the particulars of these issues in favor of distance and simplification.CONSIDER: We need to remind ourselves to engage with the actual substance of a problem, not just a model. This requires us to revisit goals and strategies based on the learning that occurs from the process of intervening in the change itself. Moving fast requires creating feedback loops so you can adjust as needed based on what you see and experience - not by following a step by step approach with little flexibility. Like Design Thinking, it may be useful to jump back to a previous step and do it over based on what's been learned. 

Barrier: The values of formal education, advancing technology, and limitless expansion of global corporations stand between us and the learner’s mind

.

Belief: Change Has Clear End States

The values within the structures we embrace emphasize efficiency, mechanization, standardization, and automation—enabling powerful forces that drive production, convenience, and reliability. They seek the ‘right answer’ to a prescribed question. The inertia behind these values drives towards homogenization.

Values of standardization tend to generate problems with relatively clear end states. If something isn’t efficient, troubleshooting persists until the wrinkle is smooth and systems run according to plan.We have a bias to concluding what we start.

We need closure

. This bias runs counter to truly gaining the intimacy needed with complex problems.

While the systems designed to support us have enhanced our lives, they are breaking down. Systems of scale allow more of us to do more than any one of us could do alone. And, they also block. With convenience, we have less need to master feeling, judgment, and sensing. We don’t even see it happening. Slowly we lose the capacity to troubleshoot the machines that support us. Process replaces feel; rules replace judgment; policy replaces our need to think critically. When ambiguous questions arise, we have less practice with the struggle of finding solutions. In the name of stability and convenience, we lose the opportunity to engage the problem with any meaningful intimacy.CONSIDER: When we address change, we typically focus on assessing the current state, defining the desired end state, and then bridging the gaps between the two via a gap analysis. This approach offers a logical end state. The ideal future is defined at the start of the change process and everything done from that point on hammers it home. But how often do people, or organizations, or economies freeze for the time you are working on your solution? In short, there is no closure. The environment you operate in is not fixed, but an emerging ecology that needs to be tended and responded to. Neither the pace of change nor disruptive technology will wait for you to implement your change. Customers don’t wait around either. Change processes that myopically focus on a pre-defined future risk having that future disrupted before it arrives. 

CONCLUSION

arrows-direction-change-move-750

arrows-direction-change-move-750

Embracing the emotional labor of change, gaining proximity to the nuances of the problem we are trying to solve, and questioning the explicit and implicit values that guide the structures in which we reckon with tension, are the forces we need to embrace in order to learn to learn well. Change, real change, demands that we really integrate the idea of ongoing learning. Superbugs, homelessness, inequality, and global warming are all examples of ongoing, complex problems that can’t be solved without changing our beliefs:OPPORTUNITY v Threat: We can learn to respond and not react. We can learn to reframe threats into challenges and opportunities. The threat-challenge idea and its effects may rest on the assumption that people are prone to consistently interpret situations as a threat or a challenge based on their life experiences. But that doesn’t mean that this tendency is a life sentence that we always think this way. If you actively re-frame stressful situations as challenges and your elevated heart rate as excitement, you can improve your health, well-being, and performance level, all at the same time.ADAPTIVE v Fixed. Business as ‘unusual’ will not feel natural at first. At some point, we might even need new words to describe it. Eventually, we will need to reinvent what it means to lead or to work in an organization. To be as close to creative problem solving as possible you must learn to improvise and adapt. You can no longer pay lip service to these terms. To improvise means "to work with what is available." It is the antithesis to preparation. To adapt means "to adjust to new conditions." Both infer the need to respond to a shift in the environment around you. The opportunity for you is to be that agent of evolution. Waiting for the DNA to evolve will take too long. A random feature that is created when a strand of DNA, or an idea, is altered and then transferred creates a mutation. Seeking or creating positive mutations can increase an organization’s resilience to change.INFINITE v FINITE:  Complexity needs to be managed, not solved. That means we need to get adept at managing and leveraging tension between two opposing forces: open/closed; stability/innovation, etc.  Leveraging is about getting more with less. When you go too far to one side, you lose out on the benefits of the other.James Carse summarizes his argument in Finite and Infinite Games,

There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite. Finite games are those instrumental activities - from sports to politics to wars - in which the participants obey rules, recognize boundaries and announce winners and losers. The infinite game - there is only one - includes any authentic interaction, from touching to culture, that changes rules, plays with boundaries and exists solely for the purpose of continuing the game. A finite player seeks power; the infinite one displays self-sufficient strength. Finite games are theatrical, necessitating an audience; infinite ones are dramatic, involving participants.

We are slowly acknowledging that we are in an infinite game, playing by old rules. We will never solve the complex problems that plague us today with the tools that got is here. We have to build new tools, which require a different way of thinking.  

Thought Series: Why learning to learn well is fundamental to our survival

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

You can’t blink now without seeing articles on the pace of change, exponential growth, or the need to innovate. Over 60% of all executives now believe disruption will hit their industries hard in the next year. Artificial Intelligence will only accelerate this momentum. The majority of organizations have recognized that company culture, as it impacts decision making and strategic integration, is a major driver of successful transformation. People know change is coming, but do not have the skills and support to drive the transformation. It doesn't matter the industry - management consultingfinancial serviceseducation. Everyone's at risk.

Then, there are these old chestnuts...

  • The only constant is change.

  • People don't resist change; they resist being changed.

  • Change before you have to.

The problem is that organizations of all sizes can be challenged on how to cope with change. All wrestle with their reality and go through denial about the need to change.

Enter the field of change management.

Change management has its origins in the 1960's when business was much more predictable. As a formal discipline, it has been around since the 1990’s. However, references to change and change management can be found in the psychological literature more than 40 years earlier. Psychologists described “change” as the unfreezing, moving, and refreezing of thoughts or behaviors. These developments described how people internalized change and their experience with it, though the researchers did not apply these concepts to an organizational setting.

In the 1990s the topic of change and change management was applied to organizations, and managers and leaders took notice of the new groundswell of articles and books such as John Kotter’s “Leading Change” and Spencer Johnson’s “Who Moved My Cheese”.

Most change models are still based on old-school thinking, tools, and techniques. No wonder 70% of all change efforts fail. In the past, leaders had months and years to implement change. Now, change needs to be understood and addressed at the moment while it is occurring. The response to change needs to be implemented in days and weeks.

THREE BARRIERS TO LEARNING TO LEARN WELL IMPACTING OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND TO CHANGE

Here are three barriers to learning, common behaviors that lead to beliefs to which we all succumb, that I believe account for the failure of our ability to contend with change:

BARRIER: WE ARE BIOLOGICALLY WIRED TO BE AFRAID OF UNCERTAINTY. 

When confronted with the choice to continue with the status quo or accept change, few us will opt for change. We like to stick with what we believe works.

BELIEF: CHANGE IS BAD.

Behavioral psychology explains why we think change is bad:

Change is a threat. --> Threat leads to a loss of food. --> Loss of food leads to death.

So you notice things changing in the world (the robots are coming, the politics are more polarized than ever) and you're one step to it all being all over.

So we learn a trick or two that works, and we use those tricks over and over, until they are status quo.

Inertia makes it hard to turn. What gives us momentum, gives us power: that's the power of scale. Scale is a force. When we have committed our lives to going in a straight line, and a revolution comes along requiring us to take a turn, we don't understand the new strategy and paradigms it's creating, or the tactics it requires, we get left behind.

CONSIDER: What is shifting in our culture is the death of the industrial age. That is at the heart of all the shifts going on. Having a solid understanding of strategy (understanding the systems in play), tactics (the skills and capabilities required to manipulate strategy), and emotional labor (caring enough to really fail at something) are how we make a difference in the world. There's so much confusion now in the business world, a world that 50 years ago had virtually no confusion, about these three concepts, but we rarely separate them into these three different groups of problems and work them together.

 

BARRIER: WE ACCEPT ARTIFICIAL REPLACEMENTS FOR ACTUAL EXPERIENCES

In order to make sense of complex concepts, we use models to simplify our understanding. We seek templates, models, and prototypes versus gaining direct involvement with the problems we are trying to solve. In doing so, we give up proximity to the particulars in favor of distance and simplification.

BELIEF: CHANGE IS FIXED AND LINEAR

When describing complexity, most change management frameworks assume that the process of change is linear. Here are several examples. They all have a beginning, middle, and end because that is how we understand things.

Losing proximity to the nuances of the problem we are trying to solve and the need for simplicity in how we think run counter to the ongoing learning that needs to occur when reckoning with change. We can no longer give up proximity to the particulars of these issues in favor of distance and simplification.

CONSIDER: We need to remind ourselves to engage with the actual substance of a problem, not just a model. This requires us to revisit goals and strategies based on the learning that occurs from the process of intervening in the change itself. Moving fast requires creating feedback loops so you can adjust as needed based on what you see and experience - not by following a step by step approach with little flexibility. Like Design Thinking, it may be useful to jump back to a previous step and do it over based on what's been learned.

 

BARRIER: THE VALUES OF FORMAL EDUCATION, ADVANCING TECHNOLOGY, AND LIMITLESS EXPANSION OF GLOBAL CORPORATIONS STAND BETWEEN US AND THE LEARNER’S MIND.

The values within the structures we embrace emphasize efficiency, mechanization, standardization, and automation—enabling powerful forces that drive production, convenience, and reliability. They seek the ‘right answer’ to a prescribed question. The inertia behind these values drives towards homogenization.

BELIEF: CHANGE HAS CLEAR END STATES

Values of standardization tend to generate problems with relatively clear end states. If something isn’t efficient, troubleshooting persists until the wrinkle is smooth and systems run according to plan.

We have a bias to concluding what we start. We need closure. This bias runs counter to truly gaining the intimacy needed with complex problems.

While the systems designed to support us have enhanced our lives, they are breaking down. Systems of scale allow more of us to do more than any one of us could do alone. And, they also block. With convenience, we have less need to master feeling, judgment, and sensing. We don’t even see it happening. Slowly we lose the capacity to troubleshoot the machines that support us. Process replaces feel; rules replace judgment; policy replaces our need to think critically. When ambiguous questions arise, we have less practice with the struggle of finding solutions. In the name of stability and convenience, we lose the opportunity to engage the problem with any meaningful intimacy.

CONSIDER: When we address change, we typically focus on assessing the current state, defining the desired end state, and then bridging the gaps between the two via a gap analysis. This approach offers a logical end state. The ideal future is defined at the start of the change process and everything done from that point on hammers it home. But how often do people, or organizations, or economies freeze for the time you are working on your solution? In short, there is no closure. The environment you operate in is not fixed, but an emerging ecology that needs to be tended and responded to. Neither the pace of change nor disruptive technology will wait for you to implement your change. Customers don’t wait around either. Change processes that myopically focus on a pre-defined future risk having that future disrupted before it arrives.

CONCLUSION

Embracing the emotional labor of change, gaining proximity to the nuances of the problem we are trying to solve, and questioning the explicit and implicit values that guide the structures in which we reckon with tension, are the forces we need to embrace in order to learn to learn well. Change, real change, demands that we really integrate the idea of ongoing learning. Superbugs, homelessness, inequality, and global warming are all examples of ongoing, complex problems that can’t be solved without more effectively managing the tension of our beliefs:

OPPORTUNITY V THREAT:

We can learn to respond and not react. We can learn to re-frame threats into challenges and opportunities. The threat-challenge idea and its effects may rest on the assumption that people are prone to consistently interpret situations as a threat or a challenge based on their life experiences. But that doesn’t mean that this tendency is a life sentence that we always think this way. If you actively re-frame stressful situations as challenges and your elevated heart rate as excitement, you can improve your health, well-being, and performance level, all at the same time.

ADAPTIVE V FIXED

Business as ‘unusual’ will not feel natural at first. At some point, we might even need new words to describe it. Eventually, we will need to reinvent what it means to lead or to work in an organization. To be as close to creative problem solving as possible you must learn to improvise and adapt. You can no longer pay lip service to these terms. To improvise means "to work with what is available." It is the antithesis to preparation. To adapt means "to adjust to new conditions." Both infer the need to respond to a shift in the environment around you. The opportunity for you is to be that agent of evolution. Waiting for the DNA to evolve will take too long. A random feature that is created when a strand of DNA, or an idea, is altered and then transferred creates a mutation. Seeking or creating positive mutations can increase an organization’s resilience to change.

INFINITE V FINITE

Complexity needs to be managed, not solved. That means we need to get adept at managing and leveraging tension between two opposing forces: open/closed; stability/innovation, etc. Leveraging is about getting more with less. When you go too far to one side, you lose out on the benefits of the other.

James Carse summarizes his argument in Finite and Infinite Games,

There are at least two kinds of games: finite and infinite. Finite games are those instrumental activities - from sports to politics to wars - in which the participants obey rules, recognize boundaries and announce winners and losers. The infinite game - there is only one - includes any authentic interaction, from touching to culture, that changes rules, plays with boundaries and exists solely for the purpose of continuing the game. A finite player seeks power; the infinite one displays self-sufficient strength. Finite games are theatrical, necessitating an audience; infinite ones are dramatic, involving participants.

We are slowly acknowledging that we are in an infinite game, playing by old rules.

Thought Series: The Value of Coaching

COACHING

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

IMG_16.jpg

The International Coach Federation made a client study of what was gained from coaching

Professional coaching brings many wonderful benefits: fresh perspectives on personal challenges, enhanced decision-making skills, greater interpersonal effectiveness, and increased confidence. And, the list does not end there. Those who undertake coaching also can expect appreciable improvement in productivity, satisfaction with life and work, and the attainment of relevant goals.

INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY

Professional coaching maximizes potential and, therefore, unlocks latent sources of productivity. At the heart of coaching is a creative and thought-provoking process that supports individuals to confidently pursue new ideas and alternative solutions with greater resilience in the face of growing complexity.

1.gif

POSITIVE PEOPLE

Building the self-confidence of employees to face challenges is critical in meeting organizational demands. In the face of uncertainty caused by workforce reductions and other factors, expectations of the remaining workforce in a suffering company are very high. Restoring self-confidence to face the challenges is critical to meet organizational demands.

PositivePeople.gif

RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Coaching generates learning and clarity for forward action with a commitment to measurable outcomes. The vast majority of companies (86%) say they at least made their investment back.

86.gif

SATISFIED CLIENTS

Satisfaction.gif

Virtually all companies and individuals who hire a coach are satisfied. If your company is not thriving, coaching is an effective catalyst for change.

 

Source: ICF Global Coaching Client Study (2009) was commissioned by the ICF but conducted independently by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Thought Series: Coaching

COACHING

Thought Series provides actionable ideas and anchors for reflection on your life or your work.

IMG_15.jpg

Executive Coaching applies to a wide range of leaders and up-and-coming leaders: C-suite executives, leadership teams, managers, entrepreneurs and business owners, and up-and-coming talent. Executive coaching is an efficient, high-impact process that helps high-performing people in leadership roles improve results in ways that are sustained over time.

It is efficient because, unlike traditional consulting assignments, it does not require invasive processes, large outside teams, and lengthy reports and analyses to get results.

It is a high-impact process because Executive Coaches typically work with clients in short meetings (i.e., 30 minutes per session). During this time, we will work together to generate important insights, gain clarity, focus, and make decisions to improve performance.

Executive coaching works with high-performing people in leadership roles. It is not therapy, meant to “fix” a person. However, it helpful to have support from time to time in order to perform better. Finally, my goal as an Executive Coach is to improve results in ways that are sustainable over time.

My clients want some sort of outcome, usually related to improved profits, career success, organizational effectiveness, or career and personal satisfaction. At the same time, coaching is about helping people improve their own capabilities and effectiveness, so that the results and performance improvements last.

WHAT COACHING IS NOT

Not therapy
As noted earlier, executive coaching is not therapy. I am not here to fix you. However, I do ask powerful questions that inquire about why you behave the way they do, or inquire about your beliefs and values that might be causing you to behave the way you do, etc. The questions are about understanding how you can embrace more empowering beliefs and values to get the results they want to get?

Not interim management
Likewise, executive coaching is not the same thing as interim management. I am not stepping in to do the job for you. Instead, I am a “shadow leader” working behind the scenes to help you succeed and improve in lasting ways.

Not consulting
Consultants tend to conduct analysis and make recommendations to clients. Coaches are more non-directive, relying on clients to come up with the answer. If the client needs data or an analysis, the coach holds the client accountable for doing that work. Receiving coaching is not the same as outsourcing your brain.

Not a crystal ball
Finally, my job as an executive coach is not to be a “crystal ball” that magically provides an answer. As a coach, I will intervene and provide advice when appropriate. But I’ll engage in dialogue with you, and then customize a tool or solution that works for your unique solution. Sometimes there is no easy answer, and my value will be to support you in making decisions with incomplete information.

MY CLIENTS

My clients are mid to senior level leaders, spanning multiple sectors. They are values-driven, and focus on work that has meaning.

When these leaders understand what drives their best thinking, they can show up every day and consistently lead from that place. That’s when great things happen. Employees play how they are coached – they follow your lead on what is permissible. If standards rise, expectations increase and performance takes off.

Leaders at all levels of organizations increasingly seek coaching to complement training and other development tools for employees because the return on investment is convincing (see What is the value of coaching?).

The impact can be enormous, and my clients find they benefit most from working with me to:

  • Establish executive presence both internally and externally through thought leadership

  • Solidify equal footing with board members, investors, industry thought leaders and all stakeholders

  • Activate their power-base to leverage and maximize their influence

What does a typical 6-month coaching engagement look like?

  • Discovery Session

  • Leadership 360 Report

  • 1:1 Coaching — up to 20 hours

  • Action planning for goals

  • Observation as needed (up to 6 hours)

  • Critical Coaching — (Limited access for brief calls/emails.)

  • Thought Leadership & Strategic Operational Support (i.e., management of monthly business reviews, annual strategic calendar)

  • Strategic Introductions (client dependent)