10 Key Differences between Benevolent Dictators and Brainpowered Facilitators
Benevolent dictator - Leader Traits |
Facilitator brainpowered - Leader Traits |
|
|
1. Fears that at times one leader will have to break a tie, make a decision, or hold folks to rules. |
Integrates people’s wisdom so that consensus follows, with shared decisions, and fewer rules. |
2. Appoints people to positions that seem appropriate for choice tasks. |
Invites volunteers to jointly lead positions based on their talents and shared evidence. |
3. Ensures that all people are led well and treated kindly – regardless of differences |
Ensures diversity leads and is modeled at all leadership levels so that even images & messages showcase differences |
4. Tells people the agenda ahead and hopes for their buy-in due to kind communication. |
Collaborates all agendas, and welcomes others’ wisdom at every step of the way. |
5. Controls leadership sparingly – with respect – and only when deemed necessary. |
Frees people as capital by respecting many leadership approaches and practices. |
6. Carefully guards against typical leadership mistakes from non benevolent styles. |
Risks others making mistakes, and quickly jumps in to facilitate solutions from shared wisdom. |
7. Sees self in charge – with the dictate to ensure benevolence to all. |
Sees innovative talents in charge – so draws unique angles into leadership decisions. |
8. Carefully guards against a few who may dominate, or bully, or intimidate others. |
Guides many talents to work together in tandem – modeling humor, humility, & openness to learn from others. |
9. Watches that no persons push one-sided ideas – or demand one size for all. |
Engages opposing views and models respect for both sides to create joint solutions. |
10. Lets the group know at times who is in charge, and does so with kindness. |
Facilitates so well that groups carry on as if great leader there – even when facilitator is absent. |
Since, I teach the comparisons between benevolent dictators and brainpowered facilitators for an innovation era to MBAs in several business schools - I’d be interested to see your take on the same. Ideas?
That is a facilitator's role and the skills for facilitator differ deeply from those of traditional leaders. The problem is solved when communication opens and people can discuss the kind of leadership that will expand innovation from all participants.
Would more innovation emerge if leaders shifted the question from: How could I lead all innovators best? to ask instead, How can I facilitate all to lead with their innovations?
For me, the most important facilitator characteristic is asking: "What do you think?" Variations on this question are endless: "What do you see as the issue here?" "What solutions do you see?" "What are the pros and cons of your preferred solution?" Thinking is what is facilitated by the use of such questions, critical in a knowledge driven era when employees want to contribute their brain power and feel engaged in an organization's strategic agenda. This is actually what Level 5 leaders do: "first who, then what" means getting "who" together first and drawing solutions "what" out of them with such questions. But this is not an easy style to adopt because those in charge like to do their own thinking, to be solution generators and goal scorers. See my article, "Creating an Engaging Cuture" http://bit.ly/f09qsc
- Log in to post comments
An interesting perspective - which is the way Mita brainpowered approaches launches all change. Step one of the five step process begins with a question which engages all, and gather input from the outset. Then step five concludes with the question where to from here. Along the way 2-footed questions carry the process starting with what if...?
Mitch, would you agree that it takes a facilitator to engage folks at the level you suggest? Sadly, most organizations tell us they only have policies and practices that place folks on a bus - with one appointed driver:-) Would you agree that problem is connected to the lack of fulfilment people feel at work and the rate of disengaged workers climbs yearly.
BTW - my son-in law is a Philosophy prof from Canada - and I am always grateful for the philosopher mind that asks and engages:-) Thanks for sharing your article and for weighing in on mine. Great to meet another lCanadian interested in eadership change. Would you agree that to cultivate a different culture for developing innovative talent, we need to cultivate a very different leadership format - where strategies allow for the regular use of questions - and input is harnessed effectively to guide entire group forward?
How do you see trust building to fuel such settings?
- Log in to post comments
Thanks Ellen for this side-by-side perspective. I'd like to share two things that came up for me:
1. Celebrating the individual: I am all for team work and I believe when done lineary as another "project" it is not authentic and sustainable. More and more I speak about and teach that our starting point in the US is that we reward the individual and focus on a "hero" mentality.
Note--I'm not judging this as right/wrong, I'm stating a fact. Having worked at Fortune 50 companies I find ignoring this reality doesn't get me closer to living my mission "I empower a world of compassion, courage and prosperity by inspiring people to be their best."
To me this recognition also has to do with Daniel Pink's summary of 30 years of research on intrinsic motivation that concludes all people seek: autonomy, mastery and purpose. I believe it all begins with clarity of purpose and then autonomy and then mastery. And autonomy as in I arrive at something being "eureka" or awesome from my perspective--my choice, not manipulated into it as the B.leader would attempt to orchestrate.
2. Words describing the Brainpowered facilitator: I love these words when they are ingrained/lived as others have said as DNA and not buzz words: engage; integrate; invite; model; welcome; shared wisdom; frees people; risks mistakes; humor & humility; openess to learn... I summarize these as love and respect--at least that makes it easy for me to remember where I am operating from. To me there are only two emotions love and fear. The more I can dance with both and recognize where my head is (that leads to my actions/lack of action) the better I learn and grow.
Just my 2 cents. I will keep reading this discussion. Thanks.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for sharing what emerged for you, Bobby! You've nudged the topic into delightfully deeper waters, and reminded us all how effective leadership can be socially constructed - as happens well at MIX!
Interesting mission! "I empower a world of compassion, courage and prosperity by inspiring people to be their best." I’d like to hear a bit more about how you do this?
Brainpowered facilitator words comes from my own lifetime of research on this topic, among many cultures, and disciplines - and each of these concepts generates brainpowered tools to gain higher motivation and increased productivity.
Look forward to your further contributions at MIX.
Best, Ellen
- Log in to post comments
Thanks Ellen for the fast response and for asking to learn more about how I live my mission statement. In short, it is my north star test of every decision I make. For instance, I left Microsoft last year after 8.5 years there to write my first book and create a niche people and organizational change company--Resonant Insights. That took courage for me to do.
I would love to share my latest white paper "Aligning Employee and Company Purpose" with you if you can make time to read it. Can you please share your email as I don't see the option to attach a file here?
I am excited to have found the MIX and HCI. I will definitely be contributing and interacting in this community. Thank you again for your active role.
Bobby Bakshi | Chief Inspiration Officer | Resonant Insights
- Log in to post comments
Dear Ellen, I have gone through your suggestion and looked at the continuum of benevolent dictator to brainpower facilitator. However, i have been practicing the brain power facilitator and to my surprise i am finding myself in greatest disadvantage. I found organizational politics, incompetence is brought to the fore front rather than performance. My question is it possible to practice to be brain powered leader without making organization ready? or start practicing brain powered leadership then think that organization follow? Do you have neurological basis for your recommendations?
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for stopping by Krishnamurthy, and thanks for your thoughtful insights. Since I work at times with a renewal leader engineer, I’d be interested to hear a bit more specifically how you practice the brainpowered facilitator. Can you elaborate a bit more on what you do, and how folks respond?
Great question about organizational readiness, and here’s the skinny from my perspective: The brainpowered facilitator is a process that supports and advances folks from wherever they stand to where they collectively agree to advance.
In response to your question about research roots for the recommendations - Yes, Mita brainpowered tools above come from my own 30 years research on leading and learning with the brain in mind. They’re renewed workplace practices (rooted in research) that raise motivation and increase innovative productivity.
These tools draw upon integrated research from recent neuro and cognitive discoveries, from more than one dozen leading and learning theories listed in the Mita manifesto, from proven practices that earned achievement awards, and doctoral degrees from several cultures in international settings.
There is also an invited MBA Leadership course based on Mita - titled: LEAD INNOVATION WITH THE BRAIN IN MIND, and the text with same title is now in draft form.
Look forward to hearing a bit more about your facilitation approach. Best, Ellen
- Log in to post comments
Ellen, I have to admit that I love this discussion. There are some issues I would like to add to be clear:
1) In that DNA shaped model, the assumption is that the facilitator is aware of the two strings of thoughts and emotions in the air and others can be unconscious about how they think, how they feel , how they are communicating, and how they are internally interpreting others’ "response “and "suggestions" to their ideas.
2) We need to use our left-side mind, the logical side which wants to scale , to weight ,to score,to analyse. It is natural .but the timing is important. It is important than before this judgmental system become dominant in the group, the collective energy is shifted upward. And by upward I mean feelings of playfulness, easiness, and perhaps fun. There is nothing general about how to achieve this "group mood”. A mediocre facilitator can reach the mood of a group of architects who are attending a brainstroming session faster than a group of financial advisors. Almost all the B.dictators in your map neglect the importance of the “group mood”. Once a better mood is achieved , people respond to the judgments with a higher attitude.However group mood is not stable and it should be tracked and guided upward continuously.
3) We have a great rule in marketing which simply says when you are authentic ( an authentic Brand) , you don’t need to say , and communicate that you are authentic .But when you are fake, you need to try hard. An authentic facilitator doesn’t need to ensure the group that they are counted, or listened or treated kindly or even rewarded. People FEEL that. An authentic facilitator doesn’t need to engage opposing views in order to shows that “hey guys, this is democracy, this is fair”. we have to really understand what is the intention of engaging “opposing view” ,is it for reaching to better ideas by filling the incompleteness of the current idea or it is only to show the objectivity of the process ,to show that this is our standard, to show that we are fair?If this is the case,we miss our original target which was reaching to the Solution.
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for your interesting perspectives here, Atna – especially as they show the differences between going at something alone and going forward as a team with a shared focus.
Would you agree that one gets a finer agreement on the process forward if:
1). Opportunities arise to voice suggestions at the onset.
2). Tone tools such as engaging opposing views become standard.
3). Rewards are set up to help people stack the deck for others.
4). Facilitators model how to engage opposing views while building goodwill even with those who disagree.
5). Advances made together yield valued advantages to the group.
I loved your example of sports teams that learn to move forward together. Other metaphors in sports work less well for this situation – but that one is brilliant. Thanks.
I have seen the dangers you speak of here, of people getting shut down, or excluded in group efforts, when people use poor tone, or neglect to listen to others in favor of pushing their own stuff.
Thanks Atna, for your interest in the facilitator role and I look forward to seeing how you will develop that guiding approach forward – as you suggested. I have written several blogs on the topic through interest in this tool too.
MIX offers a great forum to explore the edges in a safe but challenging setting! Thanks for doing just that :-)
- Log in to post comments
Well,the process( group thinking) I always dream of looks like two strings interwoven to each other ( pretty much like DNA strings which are heading upward like a spiral.)
It means that the stream of "thoughts and ideas" are interwoven to the streams of "feelings and emotions".At one extreme are the feelings of clarity,lightness,openeness which produce aha moments and in the other extreme is the power struggle with feelings of frustration, boredom ,inabilities ,ignorance which produce inefficient unclear thoughts.
and the key is that the facilitator undrestands the streams of emotions and energy in the air while observing the thoughts coming out. and his job more than anything else is to guide the emotional stream to go upward the spiral.the advantages of this methods are:
1)we have to admit that every one sees the world differently and reaching to the consensus in "thoughts" is no-end goal. however we can reach to "emotional consensus".this is how most sport leaders drive their team.
2)as idea evaluation is a delicate process in which it can evoke unwanted emotions leading to downward spiral , it is important that the facilitator tries not to go to this trap. this is in contrary to ur idea about joint solution. many says we have to evaluate things by expressing + , - .but this is very dangerous. we are not neutral regarding thoughts.especially when we have attachment to our ideas . when we focus on advantages we are directed to more advantages and wwhen we focus on disadvantages we will reach to more disadvantages .and the emotions evoked by that inhibit journey to upward spiral .so instead of +,- , the fascilitator can guide the ideas come out , and as the ideas come , and energy increase better ideas come.until we see excitement in the air, eagerness to jump to action .
I have some ideas about this guidance method and I am eager to implement this.
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for weighing in James, and I agree about the very fine lines good leaders walk - and can now also see that folks even walk on different sides of the lines. It's interesting to see how many ways people define leadership here too, and what a keen book that would make.
Interviews to respond to questions such as:
1). What's the best leadership approach to foster innovation?
2). Do top men and top women leaders - lead the same?
3). When should one form of leadership change into another?
4). Are most leaders aware of effects their approaches have on others?
5). What's the best way to get feedback on leadership effects?
My own book (still in draft form - but getting there:-) on Brainpowered Facilitation is the actual text for an MBA course titled - Lead Innovation with the Brain in Mind. Have you written much on the differences?
My upcoming book defines the many roles of facilitators - and it was really quite cool to try brainpowered facilitation out with highly creative MBA leaders as we rolled out each chapter together - and all tried related practices to improve the work climate.
Since the MIX is refreshing and is willing to rearrange leadership - it's a great place to have this discussion and to consider different approaches - for different results.
Lots of good leaders here for us all to learn something cool.Look forward to your further ideas.
- Log in to post comments
Really fascinating discussion guys - Ellen these examples have really helped bring your points to life for me.
In situations where innovation is the goal I agree the leader as facilitator model is the most valuable. I especially like the examples from the Linux and Fedora and communities.
An additional role a leader sometimes needs to play is that of critic/editor - in an artistic sense. Within most creative endeavours - performing arts or liberal arts - this role is considered a key part of the process. A great example of this is Steve Jobs at Apple. In a market where products are differentiated by stats he has helped Apple succeed by offering a more emotionally charged product. John Syracusa of Ars Technica writes very persuasively on this in his essay Hypercritical. For me as a consultant (Which boils down to facilitating and influencing without executive authority - often by reducing the perceived cost of failure) I find it very important to switch between the encourager and critic roles (And sometimes to be the Judge when we hit an impasse). It's a fine line to walk.
As well as illustrating the features of this leadership approach (Which is very valuable!) I'd really value the groups thinking on when it is most appropriate. When do you see this approach as being the highest percentage option?
- Log in to post comments
Wow Chris I am so impressed by your reflections, experiences and thoughtful articulation. No wonder diversity of ideas works!
First I should define Brainpowered tools – since it’s unfamiliar as you suggest, and it’s my own 30 year international study. Mita brainpowered tools – offer renewed workplace practices that raise motivation and innovative productivity. These tools draw upon integrated research from recent neuro and cognitive discoveries, from more than one dozen leading and learning theories listed in the Mita manifesto, from proven practices that earned achievement awards, and doctoral degrees from several cultures in international settings.
Hope that addresses what brainpowered tools do a bit differently.
Love your examples, Chris, and can likely learn from them. You are so right about TRUST and RESPECT, and that comes from building together - under the guidance of a facilitator who combines the offerings:-). If your leadership falls in between these two sides as you suggest – why not capture a name that defines the process you really emulate. BTW - I’d be willing to bet there are multiple models of leadership in this MIX circle that we can all learn from, and many I already sit at feet of again and again! Even leadership is lifelong, and delightfully fresh in new approaches, when we stay open, enthused and generous to others as you model so well!
Here are facilitation differences as I see and use them on a good day:
1. Your example 1: Once things are rolling, and leaders emerge from within, the BD takes on a humble catalyst role, saving the "dictator" persona for only when the group is stuck or to keep things moving.
Facilitator’s response to #1: Before things get rolling, opportunities are presented for people to step up to the plate, to develop leader skills and to help shape the agenda to fit multiple approaches from its inception.
2. Your example 2: “By creating a high-trust organization, Linus Torvalds is able to maintain a position of high benevolence, low dictatorship.”
Facilitator’s response to #2: many create high trust by working together – with a facilitator who pulls the ideas together and garners acceptance of the shared knowledge. Criteria are set together and no dictator is needed since all are accountable to that set criteria. Tough work, not many care to risk it – but it’s worth the negotiated roles.
3. Your example 3: “In the Fedora community, there is a Fedora Project Leader, who is sort of the benevolent dictator of the Fedora Project. This person actually steps down to make room for a new leader voluntarily every few years, so the people who've been doing great work can get the opportunity to lead, and to bring new energy into the project.”
Facilitator’s response to #3 – Nobody needs to step down because nobody is raised up. New energy comes into projects because the facilitator remains open to learn constantly – as many like you do here in MIX. People trust they can speak openly, without recrimination if they see broken practices, or inequity is evident in images, or messages.
You and I share experience in that the two most important things to have in place are:
1) trust. plain and simple. (Yes! For brainpowered facilitators it’s built together by ALL practices being open, expressed in good tone, evidence of respect for all humans, with criteria built together and agreed upon together).
2) a clear decision-making process. (Yes! For brainpowered facilitator’s it’s crafted together, changed when people point out its flaws, and evolves with the vibrancy of a community that learns the tone to disagree – while building goodwill, even with those who disagree).
You suggest “community projects run into trouble when some see consensus-driven democracy and others think they are in charge.” Brainpowered facilitators ensure that all ARE in charge and that clearly crafted tone tools are set in place from the onset – so that people STACK ONE ANOTHER’S DECKS and rewards come from the same.
I value your willingness to put the decision-making model clearly up front. More-so though Chris, I value deeply your amazing tone skills to engage differences – in ways that we can learn more from opposing sides:-).
Yes – trust and respect are at the heart of most closely-knit communities, but EVERY practice we engage builds these up or reduces them. Love the way you look to build them up, and hope that I can help to stack others’ deck in ways that add to both trust and respect that kicks butt! Stay blessed, Chris.
- Log in to post comments
As I read your description of a benevolent dictator, it struck me that there are probably multiple types even within that role. The type you describe I'd probably call "high dictatorship, low benevolence." Focus on your role as a leader and on maintaining control over the process. See yourself as "guardian."
My own preference is for a model that probably falls somewhere in between your two leadership types, maybe it could be called "high benevolence, low dictatorship." In this model, which is the one I am most familiar with, leaders within the project are nurtured and encouraged to "take over." Once things are rolling, and leaders emerge from within, the BD takes on a humble catalyst role, saving the "dictator" persona for only when the group is stuck or to keep things moving.
A few examples from my world: Linus Torvalds, the "benevolent dictator" of the Linux community, has the power to make the final decision on anything related to the Linux kernel. How often does he exercise that power? Pretty much never. Instead he's developed a group of leaders he trusts and empowers to make decisions. By creating a high-trust organization, he is able to maintain a position of high benevolence, low dictatorship.
In the Fedora community, there is a Fedora Project Leader, who is sort of the benevolent dictator of the Fedora Project. This person actually steps down to make room for a new leader voluntarily every few years, so the people who've been doing great work can get the opportunity to lead, and to bring new energy into the project.
For me, when running a community project, my experience has been that the two most important things to have in place are:
1) trust. plain and simple
2) a clear decision-making process
Where I've seen community projects run into trouble is when some people are convinced the group is a consensus-driven democracy and others think they are in charge. So I always try to ensure the decision-making model is clear up front. And, as you and others have pointed out before here on the MIX, trust (and maybe respect) are at the heart of most closely-knit communities. Would love your thoughts!
- Log in to post comments
Jose, you light up a dynamic pathway from diverse ideas into a shared vision, and that leads to the compelling advances that can be made when people collaborate from the outset of any journey. Not merely on the ideas – perhaps – but also weigh in on the leadership process that will be used to cultivate innovation.
Thanks for your kind words about the comparative chart – which simply provides a segue to gather the kind of valuable input you added here! Yes, I agree Jose: Self-knowledge is the first step to being able to share skills and create openness to accepting the other. Makes me think of Donald Schoen’s research on the same. Thanks for that reminder.
Wow – what an interesting thought Jose - that facilitator leaders liberates the potential of many - with respect for individual values and with willingness to support growth. Intriguing notions of freedom that few claim to find at work.
Your notions of leadership curiosity and fun – also render the culture you propose one that many would leap into with delight. Along with you I too imagine those roles, Jose, and love the way innovative talents tend to spring alive whenever they are present. Much to think about and lead for the sake of ongoing innovation in a fun, and caring climate.
- Log in to post comments
I think leadership has to be seen increasingly as a way to be adaptive and therefore malleable, that is, it is increasingly difficult to find a model to analyze and develop as best performance in driving groups of people for a common purpose.
I appreciate the comparative table presented here as an excellent instrument for reflection because it opens the possibility for a leader to seek to know himself. The self-knowledge is the first step to being able to share his skills and create openness to accepting the other.
I think it is in the recognition and in the combination of all these capabilities that emerges a leadership capable of promoting a culture of innovation and environment for their development.
Facilitate means make grow, fail, create opportunities and opening, be patient and responsible not only to the other, but above all to himself. Be able to recognize their fears and celebrate their achievements, be able to look inside himself and reflect on his qualities and limitations is the great challenge of a leader.
I think a facilitator leader not only liberates the potential of each collaborator as he does it with respect for individual identity and the values of each one, but also being able to transform these differences in culture and desired.
Perhaps a friendly image can occur here! A leading facilitator may be one that is able to identify each time its role as a Parent, adult and child (Eric Berne) and act according to circumstances, protecting the growth of collaborators, assigning them responsibility for their actions and being curious and fun along with them.
I think almost all of us are able to imagine those roles.
- Log in to post comments
Your own keen book on the topic, Engaging Resistance, shows much in this regard to listen to! No - to follow! Especially in areas of champion behavior!
Reading your thoughts reminds me of the value of leading so that teachability is ever-present - since all who lead well, will also follow well - and those who follow should also lead at times. That assertion suggests the constant exchanges of authority, in roles during any initiative. Would you agree that the traditional syle of leadership - linked mainly to one's power - has given way to leadershership for innovation that empowers many - toward one novel vision?
When related to innovative initiatives, I've found that many in any circle will have talents that can only develop, grow and benefit the whole group - if facilitators open spaces for that person to lead in similar teachable ways. Thus others emerge and step back again - (much like the flash...pause...flash pause... of a lighthouse) as work progresses together.
In that it is observed, attempted, altered and practiced and polished to grow - would you agree that leadership can also become both art and science in its wionder, felxibility of shared power?:-)
So look forward to working with you and all here - in ways that extend innovation, and expand the emperically based evidence that the leadership process itself is transformational!
- Log in to post comments
Moreover, the empirical validation for the heaping sums of leadership models is razor thin. It seems that there are about as many different leadership philosophies as their are people attempting to lead. We should demand more testing of leadership and followership models from those who are cabable researchers in the area rather than suggest that any old model will work for every one. The fact is, leadership must be customizable for each person as there is no one size fits all, nor should one expect that your brand of leadership that you exercise will fit for those who choose to follow.
What I teach when I'm broaching this subject is that it's important for a person to identify their own biases, and stylistic leanings, and work on their weaknesses to round out their approach. Moreover, they should learn to deftly distribute the power as it's one thing that grows exponentially when shared rather than hoarded. One of the key tricks is to be able to konw when it's more important fo you to stop leading, and become a good follower. Leadership may well be more art than science, but I do like the comparative list. It's good food for thought.
- Log in to post comments
What an amazing image, Dan, in your words: “I believe it is vital to meet and talk about those experiences and then also to lift ourselves toward a vision of possibilities by building bridges where there have been none, creating perhaps a new desired culture that breaks the chains of that conditioning.”
Yes, we’ve likely all seen the scenarios you laid out here, and yet we’ve also seen vibrant settings where possibilities occur daily because leaders rise and step their courage up to the plate –stoked by the situations that called for their talents and by the compelling trust built among peers.
Seems to me that a facilitator’s role – and a leader’s role OCCUPY the peaks of where MIX could lead with amazing prototypes, if we shape it well. I have met so many leaders here at the MIX that I still go back and reread to learn from diverse and brilliant offerings.
What wonderful bookends, Dan - TRUST and RESPECT - to contain the kind of openness that could usher in many voices on leadership that fosters innovation together.
Hopefully together we'll all build beyond what any of us could do alone. Like you – and many others here – I too believe it can happen, so that people create a refreshing and new kind of trust that enables us all to lead (and grow) in ways well suited for an innovation era.
- Log in to post comments
Hi Ellen
To me, your last line is key: "The problem is solved when communication opens and people can discuss the kind of leadership that will expand innovation from all participants." Without this discussion, this is where the "what" can easily become disconnected from the "how." We say we want innovation, but then may not create the culture that genuinely supports innovation based on that "meta-conversation" about what leadership means.
As we open such a dialogue up, divergent views and voices may well come forward and traditionally that's the point when fear begins to rise that the process will no longer be efficient, consensus cannot be achieved, and (hence) leadership is not doing its job. I have certainly seen situations in which conflicts, mistrust and indecision are rampant while the leader(s) abdicate any role, including smart facilitation. I have also personally been in the position of attempting to facilitate online conversations (Linkedin: Think Tank Group) where someone wanted to use any tactics available, including patronizing criticism and personal attacks to bully other members and the facilitator(!) so that the whole discussion had to be shut down. We have probably all experienced group situations like these, and we want to avoid them, so we may well be conditioned to ask for and accept benevolent dictatorships -- because ultimately they help us avoid the risks of playing a real leadership role ourselves. I believe it is vital to meet and talk about those experiences and then also to lift ourselves toward a vision of possibilities by building bridges where there have been none, creating perhaps a new desired culture that breaks the chains of that conditioning. Without that, the same old default culture can prevail, maybe benevolent, and maybe also elitist. People sense what the rules are.
At the MIX we are all about the exploration of radical ideas of what constitutes effective management and leadership. So it makes sense here, maybe more than anywhere else, to have the conversation and not get lost in trying to achieve some other end. That conversation is right at the core of the most amazing and brilliant innovation of all -- which has to do with finding a way to honor and include all voices, and share in the responsibility for building trust and respect as norms: in essence, deciding for ourselves -- and leading ourselves -- toward the kind of community we really want to have.
- Log in to post comments
Innovation is too often truncated in ways that keep some down subtly - to build others up. Does not need to be that way. Yet it takes learned leadership skills to craft facilitator traits that really propel talents, people and diversity forward at all levels!
It rocks and it grows from mutual mentoring - and the delightful risks people suddenly begin to take in a safe setting!
- Log in to post comments
Where were you when I was managing tons of people years ago???? definitely will be sharing this!
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.