Management Assessment of Steve Jobs and NeXT

Without a doubt, Steve Jobs is haralded as one of the most influential entrepreneurs of his time. His work and vision helped launch Apple, one of the most recognized names in personal computers and applications. He was a true visionary, and like most big-vision people Steve Jobs had his share of successes and failures. One of his biggest failures was his attempt to "change the world" with NeXT.

During Jobs' initial run with Apple his relationship within the organization took a turn for the worst. The result... Steve Jobs was kicked out. Setbacks are not uncommon for entrepreneurs, and Jobs was going to take his vision and financial earnings to create a start up that would endeavor to bring to market a cost effective computer that would target and change universities for ever. He created NeXT, a tech-company built with some of the most loyal Jobs techies. NeXT never did reach their end goals, and ultimately was bought out by Apple, which brought about "Round Two" for Jobs and Apple.

Jobs' efforts at NeXT was documented in a video. In a sobering look at how genius operates, this video demonstrated how difficult it was for the most brightest innovators to work under Jobs' expectations. His gravitational appeal was so attractive that he almost fooled his team of innovators that the impossible could actually be possible. Reality, on the other hand, dealt a very different set of cards for NeXT and its team.

Knowing myself, I would have definitely signed on to work on a start up with Jobs if he were to ask me. In a time of accelerated innovation and advancement in computers and software, who wouldn't have followed one of the men who started it all? However, once that ether ran its course, and the reality of working under a mad-scientist type genius with lofty goals and visions gave way to impossibility I would have been among the many in the NeXT team wondering if I had hitched my wagon to the wrong horse.

It is one thing to have a vision and shoot for the stars, and for every Steve Jobs and Bill Gates there are probably thousands of unknown casualties lining the hillsides of Silicone Valley. What he did with Apple from the beginning was that one in a million opportunity that happened at the right time with the right people. A hard feat to duplicate in a highly competitive industry. Where Steve failed at his attempt with NeXT was that he tried to go it alone, and by this I mean by severing important ties with other pioneers like Microsoft and Apple. The foundation for success was already laid out with these giants, and a partnership with these companies would have been the key to success for NeXT. However, Jobs' pride and arrogance led him into an uphill battle with very little support. He had the money to back him, but he needed the network to make his vision a reality.

In my Management Assessment Profile, a keyed in on a few characteristics that would have not bode very well with Jobs' NeXT adventure. First off, I like an established structure with established rules and guidelines to build off of. I don't fancy building an organization from scratch when there are many organizational structures already in existence that could serve as a guide to success. I need to be able to create my path from a solid foundation, and NeXT never seemed to grasp their foundational vision and structure.

Secondly, I am financially motivated. This  would have prompted me to join forces with a 30 year old billionaire, but once I saw the ship sinking I would have been one troubled employer... especially when I witnessed such extravagant waste in the early ages of development.

Finally, I am a loyal team player with a very realistic view point. It would have torn me apart to see NeXT implode from within when we were all so hungry for success. It would have been a hard pill to swallow if I would have found myself out of a job while Jobs jumped ship back to Apple in all its splendor.

For me, I would have loved to have been a part of the sales team in Steve's meetings. I would have had no problem telling him that the product is not as advertised and I cannot take a less than promised product to market. I would have loved to have been that voice that said "Look guys, you set this venture in motion, and I have some serious buyers who are willing to purchase this computer, but you need to either come to the table with what you set out to build, or face the reality that this just isn't going to work". Basically, give me something to sell, or quit blowing a lot of smoke.

There is no doubt Steve Job's influence changed our world. However, even the strongest of entrepreneurs have their pros and cons.

JP

Reflective Analysis

According to Carl G. Jung's theory of psychological types people can be characterized by their preference of general attitude, perception, and functions of judging, :

• Extroverted (E) vs. Introverted (I)
• Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N)
• Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F)
• Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P)

Using these four dichotomies 16 different combinations, or personality types, can help describe an individual's personality characteristics. I am an ENTP.

ENTP - Extraverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Perceiving. Yep, this is me... to a "T".

The ENTP description states that my type is clever, verbally as well as cerebrally quick, innovative and ingenious. I enjoy being stimulated by physical or intellectual things, problem solving, and being described as an optimist. I tend to question authority, and am extremely loyal. ENTPs have a need have areas of expertise, excellence, and uniqueness. We are competitive in nature.

So, that being said... why is there a need to classify people into 16 different categories? What's the purpose or point? The answer... understanding. Breaking down the multitude of cultural, religious, ethnic, and gender characteristics that define us all into 16 useful generalizations can help us understand ourselves as well as those we interact with. This isn't a pinpoint, cookie-cutter science of classification, but a generalization of certain personality traits we share and exhibit. 

At our very core existence we are social creatures. We depend on interacting with others for our very survival (even the extremely isolated mountain man relies on others from time-to-time). If we are to succeed in this life, by whatever definition we place on the word, we would be better equipped if we can better understand those in which we are in contact with. If we are to be leaders... it is even more important to know our followers. 

In my office we are few, but effective. We don;t have the luxury of hundreds of employees milling around a complex organizational structure. We are 5, maybe 7 strong at our highest peek of performance. This is a ripe environment to learn and understand each other's strengths and weaknesses... and to evoke the best from each other. For example, my sales manger is meticulous, driven, and focused... but rather naive to the world and others. Understanding her and how she perceives her surroundings helps me to find her motivational buttons and get her to push her limitations. My production manager is bull-headed, and full of pride... but extremely talented and dependable. I wouldn't approach these two extremely different individuals with the same tactics. Instead, I would be more successful catering to their individual personalities. 

More important than understanding others is understanding yourself. How I react to those around me, learn from my interactions, and seek to improve myself will better enable me to grow as a person. As Jung described I am clever, but this can work against me if I am not aware of the pros and cons of being clever and when to use it. I may be intuitive, but am I willing to learn from others? Am I fighting the "system" to make it better, or is it just in my nature to do so? Knowing the answers to these questions will help me be a better all-around individual. And for me and my definition of success, the more intend I am with who I am the better service I will be to those in my life.

JP

The Future of Organizational Development

Organizational Development (OD) is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase efficiency and effectiveness in order to better achieve strategic goals. In the past 50-60 years we have seen a dramatic and exponential growth in technology, communication, and the need for speedy decision-making ability. Some could argue that the rate of change has surpassed the ability to keep up for large, traditional organizations. OD has been proven to be an effective solution bridging the gap between forward progress and stagnation.

In an ever changing world we can all agree that organizations, large and small, need to embrace change and evolve with the environment in which they exist. Moving towards a more efficient and effective state of being can be a costly, time consuming, and daunting task with layers upon layers of development and improvement... but necessary to remain competitive. Change is never an easy undertaking, but with the right help from an OD practitioner and a solid game plan it can be manageable.

OD and OD consultation has also grown as an industry. In economic terms OD fills a need, or demand by supplying organizational skills, techniques, and practices that can be implemented over a period of time to streamline processes, mitigate waste, and improve efficiency. Brown offers two trains of thought to this supply and demand scenario of OD in the last chapter of his book An Experiential Approach to Organization Development... OD is a rapidly changing field keeping up with the times and OD as a fad that will become irrelevant.

From what I now know of OD I lean towards the "rapidly changing field keeping up with the times" for several reasons. First and foremost, I can see the very real and necessary need for change in America's Organizations, infrastructure, and political system. All three of these tie in together to some degree, and all three are in need to "keep up with the times".

Let's talk about our Nation's organizations. There are some that get it - the need to evolve and find solutions to cope with change in a positive way. Google, Facebook (social media as whole for that matter), Amazon, Costco... these companies have made significant changes within their organizations to improve the way business is conducted. It is not a coincidence that these are relatively newer corporations that were born into a technological age. They understand the marketplace on a global scale and have shown the ability to recognize the need to be fluid and adaptive. While these organizations represent the tip of the iceberg in corporate innovation how many other corporate organizations are too large, or too steeped in tradition to break the chains of "our way of doing business", vertical organizational structures, and wasteful spending of both time and money? Again, change is not easy and OD requires that everyone involved participate and buy into the OD changes for these efforts to take hold and grow. Sure, you could spend billions in upgrading technology and automation, but you need the operators, partners, suppliers, and customers to believe in the changes for them to work in favor of efficiency and effectiveness.

Take a look at our infrastructure. In December 2012 I spent a well deserved port visit in Dubai while serving on the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower. My first visit in a far-away land. I witnessed architectural feats I didn't even know were possible, clean city streets lined with glistening taxi cabs on 6 and 7 lane superhighways, and growth in progress. There were light-rail trains floating on air and man-made islands. I got to see the view from the world's tallest building. The sense of awe stirred the very nature of my national pride because I was standing in the midst of a culture that thrived on new ideas, possibilities, and forward thinking. That same year I drove from Virginia to Martha's Vineyard, passing through New York, with my family. My children had never seen the Big Apple and I was excited to share this experience with them, but as we approached the Big City I noticed something that stuck out like a sore thumb... the city was crumbling. Trash piled up on the highway medians. Buildings looked decrepit and old. We passed an old Amtrak Train that looked like it was on its last leg stranded on an overpass waiting for its turn to cross a bridge. With the image of Dubai still fresh in my mind this sight of our beloved and most recognized city in America hurt my heart. There is no other industry in our great country that needs to accept change than our infrastructure, and we could use a good dose of OD to get started.

Finally, without getting too political, our political system itself is in need of change. We have been promised change. Campaigns have been run and won on this idea of change. However, there is still so much waste and stagnation in how we manage our country. Our government is huge, and to the average person looking in it is understandable why apathy has replaced encouragement. But to the OD practitioner... here lies the greatest opportunity in disguise!

Changes comes no matter what we do to prevent it. We are either proactive about change or reactive... which seems to be more the case. The idea and concepts of organizational development is real and meaningful. The idea that all processes can be improved upon is ancient, but the practicality of changing for the better is in the hands of the organization. There is help and with help there is hope. OD may change its face, or adapt to whatever terminology defines it, but the concept of continuous improvement is ever-present. We can either embrace change and make it a part of our daily lives, or we can choose to ignore it and get passed by. Either way... something is going to change.

JP

Transformational Strategies

Leading change in today's fast paced world is tough. Not only are we experiencing new paradigms in economic and geo-political fluctuations but we are forced to learn and accept new technologies, innovation, and communication methods... on the fly. Too often change is forced upon an organization due to a lack of willingness to prepare, unforeseen circumstances, or just being stuck in outdated ways of doing business. Whatever causes the need for change it is a tough undertaking to successfully lead the change initiative in a positive direction.

This week we researched a few remarkable examples of organizations who transitioned through change. We looked at Home Depot and how Robert Nardelli impacted this giant in both positive and negative ways. We read a story of a furniture company who reengineered his team's approach towards  customers, and we listened to General Stanley McChrystal, US Army retired, discuss how he had to make drastic changes in himself as well as his leadership techniques post 9-11. These were some powerful examples of leading through transition. The one clear message I learned from all these examples was the importance of sharing the vision and gaining confidence in the movement.

Robert Nardelli changed Home Depot when he took the helm as CEO in 2000. His style and strategy was process driven and he effectively streamlined and automated many of Home Depot's processes. This saved the company millions of dollars, but he failed in the long run. Why? He didn't share his vision with the thousands of employees who would be forced to work in a new, changing environment. He didn't share his vision, or his vision didn't include the culture of the Home Depot family.

Jim McIngvale, owner of Gallery Furniture in Houston, TX, was forced to reengineer his business strategy in the face of a nationwide recession. He never lost focus on the opportunity Gallery Furniture had, and he needed to make some changes in the culture of his employees to see this vision through. It took redesigning the sales process, incorporating technology, changing the mindset of his sales staff, and redirecting production in a safer, more efficient operational direction. He made his vision known, and through a series of training programs, reenforcement of small successes, and a continuous desire to adapt to a new breed of customer. The results of his shared vision effectively changed the culture of his employees, revamped their sales approach, reduced delivery reworks, improved safety records and employee wellness, and reduced his inventory. McIngvale lead change for his organization by never quitting on his vision for what could be.

Genreal McChrystal, after almost 30 years of serving as an Army Officer, had to readjust his leadership style after the attack of September 11, 2001. His command spanned continents, employed new technologies that had yet been battle tested, encompassed a broad range of ages, sex, and experiences. He had to learn to lead all over again in order to carry out his mission. What made him successful was his ability to relearn how he viewed leadership. He learned from his troops. He gained trust through superior communication over a range of media. And, he shared his vision up and down the chain of command. Trust in combat is just as important than the equipment used to fight, and he had to learn how to build mutual trust in a "new breed" of soldier. He discovered that men will only follow a vision if they know about it, can understand it, and believe it has the best intentions. He succeeded, and many lives saved can be attributed to his ability to learn how to lead in new, unprecedented times of change.

Being a leader in these times does not mean being right, it means acting right. Being able to incorporate new ideas, innovation, and technology and make them work to produce positive results takes determination, hard work, and vision. It is the shared vision that can change a culture. This is the face of "new leadership". Being able to identify the need for change, make the right choices to effect a change strategy, and sharing this vision with those who will be instrumental in making change happen. Communicating vision to those you lead is the foundation for leadership moving forward in this fast paced world.

JP

Leading System-Wide Change - What Makes a Leader

"People do not decide to become extraordinary. They decide to accomplish extraordinary things." ~ Sir Edmund Hillary

How exactly does one become a leader of industry? What is it that separates the few from the many? Some would argue it takes an unparalleled desire to succeed, a tireless work ethic, or the ability to transform dreams into reality. Our world is filled with over 6 billion people, yet there are very few success stories in comparison. So, what does it take to be a leader and effect change?

When I think of leaders who have changed the world I think of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mahatna Ghandi, Winston Churchill, and Nelson Mandela. People who over came incredible odds to accomplish extraordinary things. Thomas Edison patented over 1,000 ideas, products, and concepts including the light bulb. To me that is incredible because I couldn't imagine a world lit by candles and oil lamps. I wouldn't be writing this blog on my Mac using Google Blogger without the visions of ordinary men who created extraordinary things. Leaders become who they are by doing things other people haven't done, aren't willing to do, or haven't thought of yet... and they do it better than anybody else.

By definition, being a leader means you have to lead people in a direction. You have to have influence over others to want to follow you. You have to lead by example. Jim Rhone, one of my favorite authors and motivational gurus, said "if you want to be successful help others around you to become successful". Ideas and visions are only ideas and visions until they become action, and that takes people working together towards a common goal.

Obstacles are opportunities for a leader. I can't think of too many people who became leaders of industry without fighting an uphill battle. The illusion is that these people made it look easy. Where the masses may only see the results they seldom see the rocky, uphill battle to achieve the level of success they are in awe of. When Bill Gates dropped out of college, turned down a job with IBM, and began writing software and building computers in his garage his family thought he was crazy, but this is what it sometimes takes to effect change. No one could do what Bill Gates did... until he showed the world what he could do. His efforts effectively changed the world.

Not all leaders create change, and change is never easy. It is human nature to find the easy way. No one searches out the most difficult path, but when trying times are upon us it takes people with vision, guts, and determination to push through and use change to make things better. This is also a characteristic of leadership. When Nazi Germany was beating the British in WWII Churchill didn't throw up his hands and say "well, we gave it our best lads". No, he said "Once more into the breaches dear friends!" and lead a country against a powerful force to changed the course of war. He gave hope through action, and lead the minds and hearts of the English to rally up and fight through the toughest of odds. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things... this is what makes a leader.

I am a leader... not in the sense of Bill Gates, Churchill, or Ghandi, but I have a responsibility to my family, colleagues, and God to be a leader. My eyes are open to the struggles of raising a family and providing for them, finding solutions to problems at work, and walking in the path laid before me by God. None of these are easy, and it takes hard work, discipline, and a focus on what I believe is the right thing to do. For me, failure is not an option, which doesn't mean I won't fail, but I will get up more times than I get knocked down. I will continue to learn and grow as a person and do what I can to make those around me better. One person can't change the world, but if you can establish a good example for others to follow great things can happen. This is what it means to be a leader.

JP

Self-Managed Teams

Incorporation of teamwork is a growing ideology in today's organizations. We can do more than me, and teamwork combines the talents of the many versus the skills and abilities of one to accomplish more "work" in a shorter amount of time. Utilizing teams, more specifically high-powered teams comprised of highly skilled people working towards an objective, can cause obstacles for traditional styles of leadership. In essence high-powered teams are fully capable to manage themselves thereby shifting the purposes of leadership to guider-ship (trademark patented word not to be used without the expressed permission of Jody Powell Inc.).

There are many benefits to a self-managed team. The purpose of a team is to accomplish a goal, or purpose. These goals and purposes are laid out into objectives by project managers. Once the objectives are shared with the group get out of the way and let the team do what they do best. Simple, clean, and efficient. This would probably drive middle-managers and traditional leaders crazy. Where is the accountability? What if they accomplish their goals in a completely different way than upper management had anticipated? Who do we hold accountable?? The answers to these questions lie within the team itself. The team does not generally make the goals or objectives to hit (although it would be a good idea to include the team in on the ideas and direction planning process). The team purpose is to make it happen, and the self-managed team knows how best to do that very thing. Set the team in motion, provide guidance when necessary, track progress, and be of support and assistance... this is all that needs to be done to "manage" a self managed team.

Personally, I worked in self-managed work teams in the Navy. This typically happened when our Leading Petty Officer was a technical expert and used the junior people, with varying levels of experience, to accomplish tasks. The goal of this type of SMT was to keep Chief out of the team. Chiefs always had a tendency to over-analyze and micro-manage, so to counter that the team work autonomously to accomplish our mission feeding the Chief the information he/she required.

Currently I work in a similar situation. I am the team leader for a store in Corpus Christi, TX with our corporate offices in San Antonio about 2 hours up the highway. We have three sales people including an assistant and 4 production team members. We have goals and projects passed down from corporate and we carry them out how we see fit. As the team leader I make the reports to my boss and inform home of our progress. We manage our own issues, find solutions to our market's unique obstacles, and work interdependently with each other to accomplish our goals. We vary in our collective expertise, but compliment each other with different skill sets. I didn't realize until this week's lesson on SMTs how many similarities we share with Brown's definition, but we are very much an autonomous unit.

Managing a self-managed team requires more guidance than leadership in the traditional sense. Brown describes upper management as a support team in this scenario, which is exactly what is needed for a SMT to operate at capacity... support. Being able to track production and effort is part of team management. Keeping the team on track is a shared responsibility of the internal team leader and the support team. Overall, self-managed teams run themselves. Point them in the right direction, provide as much support as the team needs, and let them do their thing.

JP

Goal Setting and Feedback

Many motivational speakers have shared a variation of the phrase, "No one plans to fail, but many fail to plan". Why is this such a strong message that so many use it as fodder to get people on track for success? Simply, if we don't know where we are going we will never truly know when we get there. You have to have a plan. In this sense a plan is a goal, or something to be attained. In order to get somewhere or something there is usually a series of steps to be accomplished in order to get there.

Without doing a study in human evolution or socialization I would wage a stiff bet that as long as man has been mobile he/she has devised some sort of map to chart progress, report new discoveries, and help others save time by avoiding pitfalls along the way. The earliest humans might have written the directions to a food or water source on cave walls. In the discovery age when explorers were searching new trade routes to India they charted their courses and passed on the information to following travelers. Today, we have our Garmins and smart phones with Google Maps. Charting our courses and passing on information is probably as old a human trait as utilizing fire. We have a need to know where we are going, and the best way for us to get there is to have a plan or goal.

Goals can be big or small, long range or short sided. Goals are our mental maps to get what we want. Establishing little goals in the effort to accomplish larger ones requires feedback and evaluation from time to time to ensure we are tracking for our ultimate destination. Feedback throughout our progression is important to us. Whether we hit a landmark on our way to the watering hole, took that left at Albuquerque, or received some praise from our bosses/coworkers for a job well done feedback is important for us to measure our advancement. So, goals are planning strategies written down and feedback acts as reinforcement along the way.

Brown discusses in his book, An Experiential Approach to Organization Development, that younger generations require more frequency in feedback. He claims that "a combination of goal setting and feedback on individual performance has a positive effect on performance". Brown also alludes to a trend that older generations are less dependent on feedback as younger folks. This does not surprise me in the least. If we take a simple look into how older generation acquired information and compared this to how we get information today we can see why younger people tend to respond better to instantaneous feedback. When my mother was working towards her Masters Degree in the 80's I distinctly remember her spending hours at the library, researching books and journals, following one source to another and tracking her progress on a Big Chief tablet. She put in considerable time and effort to find answers to her questions, and once her knowledge was attained it was reinforced by the fruits of her labor. Today, as I am working on my Masters Degree I can Google, Wiki, Hunt Library Online, and click away to find instantaneous answers to my questions with little effort. A smart person would have that lingering internal voice inside their heads questioning the information source, if the information is relevant, or pertains to the ultimate goal being pursued. So, for me I require feedback from my sphere of influence. My theory is this... when less effort is made to attain information the higher the need for feedback.

We live in a fast paced world and the speed in which information is available to us can be overwhelming (and it's only getting faster). When we set our sights on a goal and make a plan we need to be aware of our progress. I am reminded of Chris Kyle's book, American Sniper, when he was discussing that being an 8th-inch off target on the scope could mean feet off target down range. Little miscalculations now could mean huge deviations down the road. This is why, in my life, it is important to plan accordingly, make goals and track them, and seek feedback throughout my process. We all want to get somewhere in the least amount of time, and the best laid road map comes with a series of landmarks. Planning to succeed requires planning to achieve. Set goals, accomplish them one at a time, seek feedback, and get to where you are going. In the immortal words of General George S. Patton, "we are either moving forward or we are moving backwards". Stagnation is not an option... plan accordingly.

JP

Team Cooperation and Competition

The decision to form a team should stem from the purpose in which the team is designed. The goals, or purpose of the team needs to be realized by all participants and understood in order to move forward with a common sense of direction. With the purpose in mind, and as the initial formation stages of team take place, the individual members should have a say in the ground rules. This is the essence of a Team Charter.

Recently, we have formed a team in our Master's program to build upon team concepts, teamwork, and accomplishment of team goals. By this time in our program we have all participated in some form of "online team" and we all have a sound concept of what works and what doesn't. So, we made our Charter and expressed our individual strengths, expectations, past challenges, team goals and barriers, as well as some simple ground rules. This particular team is comprised of five motivated professionals sharing a common experience in self-education, and this blog is dedicated to the process of forming our group.

First off, we were given an outline for our charter. Each member was to include their respective contact information and fill out the fields with their thoughts and expectations. There are several ways to accomplish this with members scattered around the US, and we chose the "hot potato" method. The first team member out of the gates posted his portion of the charter to our file exchange, and then posted a discussion board comment on how others should follow. Each person was to download the file, add their information, and repost to the file exchange for the next person to complete. The final member to fill out the charter then posts it for the group to review and submit for grading. Simple and effective.

Not only is the content of our charter and submission process effective, but it allows us to catch a glimpse into the thought process (behaviors) of our members. Will anyone wait to the last minute? Does anyone object to this process? Or, will we all build upon a solid foundation of teamwork? It is a good test to establish the working behaviors of a new and dispersed team.

The main theme throughout our charter was communication. We have assignments that have deadlines, and we need participation from all members to accomplish these tasks. We also all have very busy and productive professional and personal lives that demand our attentions. So, if someone is going to be late or having trouble with their submission we all agreed we need to know about it sooner rather than later. We can only bridge gaps if we see them coming in enough time to fix them.

Our results were successful. We now understand each others' strengths and expectations of the group. So, what if someone doesn't hold up there end of the bargain? Simple... we complete the task, submit our work as professionals do, and confront the slacking member to find out why they dropped the ball. I believe that we all are in this program to succeed, and we all want to perform well (mainly an assumption on my part based on my own feelings and personal expectations). Life does have a tendency to happen, but we now all agree that communicating situations that will compromise the teams purpose is expected from all five.

Personally, I love these team projects. Online Teams, or virtual teams, have unique obstacles inherent... mainly time zone barriers. Learning to overcome these barriers is best done through understanding, communication, and respect of other members. In my personal and professional experience I will always be a part of a team in some way, shape, or form. My wife and I are a team for our family. At work we operate as a team, and understanding, communication, and respect are all necessary elements that ensure solid teamwork. In the immortal words of John Madden, "It's the team that gets into the end zone the most that is going to win". NO one gets ahead by themselves, and if they do they will probably be too tired to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

JP

EcoSeagate

Corporate retreats and weekend team building excursions have been a growing avenue for organizations to establish (or reestablish) trust among coworkers. Through challenging courses rooted in teamwork exercises groups of individuals learn the valuable lessons of trust, inter-dependabilty, and hard work. Seagate Technology, a multi-billion dollar computer storage company, has taken this concept and created EcoSeagate, an intense week-long team-building exercise, to foster core values within their ranks.

EcoSeagate, costing upwards of 9K per person, involves hiking, kayaking, swimming, and rappelling down cliffs... as a team. They break up participants into "tribes" and compete against other "tribes" throughout the week. There are chants, obstacles, and costumes designed to push social limits and boundaries. It is a sort of social experiment wrapped around some very challenging events, and require 100% team work to accomplish the mission. In the end, the "tribes" are fully involved with each other, develop a stronger sense of knowledge and trust, and strengthen the bonds that transfer over into the work place. Win or lose, the corporate culture benefits.

Personally, I love a good challenge. Traveling to exotic lands and participating in tough team-work based exercise is right up my alley. However, not everyone shares my sense of adventure. I see value in projects like EcoSeagate. It builds trust and pushes the limits of each person to find a new gear within themselves. It makes people better. Whenever people work in a team environment, which is occurring more often in today's organizations, there needs to be trust. Trust has to be earned, which means trust requires effort to attain. What better way to build trust than having to depend on your team to accomplish physical, mental, and spiritual challenge.

In my experiences I have found that some people create a false facade about them to hide their inequities, insecurities, or inabilities. In order to break down those facades and replace them with genuine character elements is to put "feet to the fire". When a person reaches their limits and exhaustion sets in the true colors come out. Dissolving facades can be painful and embarrassing for some, and uncovers a vulnerability within that most try real hard to protect. The tuff guy will show people he is really a wimp, the bossy lady shows she is really in need of moral support, and the fearless leader will reveal they are filled with fear and reservations once their facades are torn down. Once this happens, you are ready to build a team with a solid understanding of the people who are members.

A funny development happens when people let others into their "protected" zones. Trust forms. It takes a great deal of trust and risk to become vulnerable, and this is usually met with encouragement, understanding, and appreciation. This is the foundation for formulating trust, and trust is the backbone for a high-powered team.

I would love to take my team of employees to the mountains of New Zealand like EcoSeagate, but unfortunately I do not have 9K dollars a head to spend on team building. Instead, I look for ways to build trust in daily interactions in our office. The best approach to accomplish this... communication. Open and honest communication. I don't hide my goals for myself or the company from anyone. I share them as often as I can and encourage the team to share theirs as well. I encourage feedback, good and bad, so we all know what each other is truly thinking. If I make a mistake I own it to the group, and we find a solution together. Everyone has value in our shop, and while I would jump at the chance to brave the rugged outdoors to prove our resolve I feel we can make just as much headway through real, open, and honest communication.

JP

Eric Schmidt on Hiring and Recruiting

Everybody knows Google, and how this unique Search Engine Monster has dominated the Internet. What most people don't know is the people that work at Google make up one of the most interesting cultures in business today. "Googlers", as they call themselves are comprised of some of the smartest, most dedicated, and driven individuals in the labor market. Eric Schmidt, Google's Executive Chairman, discussed the Google culture and how they hire and recruit talent into their ranks.

Eric has been with Google for over ten years as the CEO and currently sits as the company's executive chairman. He mentioned in this speech that as you build a company you get a chance to determine the culture, the people, and the style. Google entices some of the best and brightest minds out there, but not all of these types of people are the best at working with others or within a team environment. So, how did Google blend such a variety of unique talent into a synergistic culture? Hiring the right people.

The Google hiring team looks for qualified people who show promise in a particular field. Once they bring someone onboard management's job is to assist the Googler to do best whatever it was he/she was hired for. "Let them do what they're going to do" is Schmidt's philosophy. Google hires driven professionals that are always going to be pursuing something. They may need a little direction from time to time, but Google's culture itself demands initiative. Personnel changes are constantly taking place around Google, according to Schmidt, to find the right balance of chemistry, where the compatibility balance is the greatest. They encourage 20% of work time to be devoted to adjacent and other projects not established in the "normal" working responsibilities. This lends a certain amount of freedom to dictate how a day is scheduled and what a person may work on. The end result, an amazing culture which produces some of the most amazing applications.

I employ a very similar type of structure at my work place. We all have our parameters and certain expectations that need to be handled each day, but there is also a freedom to think outside the box and work on unique ways to introduce or products to market. How we accomplish this is through open and honest communication. If my sales manager tells me she needs to run a few errands and drop off some literature at a few places I say, "Ok, let me know how it works out". There is no magnifying lens over anyone in our store, unless there is a real need to keep someone on track or provide some direction. Because I am relatively new to the organization we are still figuring out each other quirks, but for the most part we treat each other like adults and promote creative thought.

I've always been more of a hands-off type of manager. I do this by expressing my desires, sharing our goals, and actively listening to each other. Then... we just get out of each other's way and make things happen. Results can be measured in sales, but the effort that drives sales is unique to the individual. We don't want order takers at Homefield. We want problem solvers.

This type of leadership can have its draw backs, but the culture that has grown into the identity of the organization mediates most of the problems. If things aren't going well, or a policy doesn't make sense then we have a problem. This is why I have chosen problem solvers to staff our office. We kind of police each other in this sense. If it is not moving us forward it doesn't belong.

Now, Homefield is nowhere near the size and scope of Google, but the culture is based on the same beliefs. Find the best people for the job, get them plugged in and prepared to work... then let them do what it is they were hired to do. If it works for Google it can work for me. 

Build a Tower, Build a Team

Tom Wujec performed some research on team building using a technique he titled the "marshmallow problem". The concept includes a team of people, dry spaghetti, a yard of tape, and a marshmallow. The goal is to see who could build the tallest structure in a limited time. The results showed that out of groups of Graduate students, CEO's, and several other professional talent pools the best designers were architects/engineers and kindergarteners.

The most interesting observations Tom noticed was how professionals quickly vied to establish a group structure, make a plan, then build their structure, and cross their fingers in hopes it would stand. It is not surprising that a table of "corporate leaders" would spend some time figuring out who was going to take charge of the task before making plans to build. The ingredients are simple. The task is simple. However, some of these groups complicated the process with an unrehearsed power struggle. Not surprisingly, most of the structures failed.

So, why are kindergarten aged children so successful at this? Architects and engineers I can understand, but how do elementary kids out perform masters of industry or graduate students? Tom concludes that none of the children spent any time jockeying for power, or as he put it "wanted to be CEO of Spaghetti Inc.". They see a task with its unique parameters and get to work. The planning phase is probably being conducted as the structure is being built, and new ideas are shared during the process from the successes and failures along the way. The time NOT wasted on establishing a pecking order could be spent on fixing problems in design on the fly. Therefore, in the same amount of time there is more productive energy being spent on finding a solution than time wasted on structure.

Donald Brown states "the purpose of process interventions is to help the work group become more aware of the way it operates and the way its members work with one another". Efficient operation of a team, in any environment, depends on the collective problem-solving skills and abilities of the team members. Focus on an objective is more important than the direction of the components. Grad students and CEO's missed the mark with their towers because they allowed too much energy to be shifted away from using the group dynamic to produce the best results. When you spend a lifetime leading from the front it is hard to lead from within, and this is why Kindergarteners succeeded where other failed.

What can we take away from the Marshmallow problem? We should examine how we use our power in regards to goal accomplishment. Are we getting in our own way to success? As leaders we need to learn to identify problems quickly and find solutions that are appropriate for the scope of the project. We also need to learn to think freely and work as a team and not independent of it because of our status as leaders. We need to be aware of the group behaviors and norms when working through problems, and figure out how to best work together.

Now that I have started my new job as the General Manager of a small retail outdoor living store we have a dozen Marshmallow Problems each day. I don't have all the answers, but I do have a fresh perspective on possible solutions. I also rely heavily on my team of sales and production members for their insight and ideas. I encourage their thoughts and welcome a collaborative effort. Tom Wujec's Marshmallow Problem reinforces my decisions to incorporate our small group to find practical and creative answers to the many hurdles we face on a daily basis.

Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention

Engineering changes within an organization is a complex task with many moving parts. There are technological advancements, faster methods for decision making, and changes in global markets that all contribute to making the right choices for change. None of these factors come without their fair share of risk, and the risk centers around doing things differently than they were done before. In other words, continuous change requires an understanding of the continuous risk involved with change. It is not a simple matter of making a decision to move in a new direction, but gaining the support of everyone involved to get you there.

Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, and Gordon Bethune, CEO of Continental Airlines, spoke with MBA students of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke about how they both dealt with major changes in their companies, markets, and mergers (in the case of Honeywell and Allied Signal). Both leaders in their respective industries, Bonsignore and Bethune touched on how they handled major changes to move their companies forward through tough times and financial uncertainty. Throughout this interview there was a common interest in how these leaders lead their companies forward while implementing huge changes in the structures of their companies. This common interest was focused on changing the culture of their company identities.

In the case of Honeywell/Allied signal there was a clash of cultures merging together in the hopeful efforts of increasing productivity, making better products, and reinventing long term cultures into a new blended mission, a huge task considering the size and scope of both Honeywell and Allied Signal. Bonsignore made a very clear statement that those who help this new culture vision prosper will be rewarded and those who work against it will suffer. This decision and strategy defines the company's seriousness on moving forward as a new entity with new goals, vision, and direction. In my opinion, this is the paramount effort of a leader who says to his/her people, "You are either with us or against us. Get on the bus, or we will leave you behind". This puts the choice of change in the employees court. Work together to create something new and better, or get out of the way.

Both Honeywell and Continental have their barriers to their respective visions and goals. Rapid market shifts, economical fluctuation, technological advancements, and a whole bunch of employees to buy in to the changes being implemented. Both CEOs shared similar view points on how they over came these barriers. They got their people on board and helped them believe change was possible. Neither were afraid of making mistakes, and both of them emphasized the importance of learning through making them. Both CEOs credited their employees with the successes of their businesses. The focus on customer satisfaction also resonated with both of these leaders. Taking care of the people they serve, both internal and external, was Bonsignore's and Bethune's main focus, and this is the essence of their effective leadership styles.

Change hardly ever comes easy and without a price. Technology is expensive, restructuring an organization costs jobs, and creating a new culture or identity within an organization takes time and leadership. The examples Bonsignore and Bethune offer their companies are centered around a strong confidence that the vision and direction of change is important and good for the company. They live what they believe, and they both set the example for their organization to follow. This example is how I will focus on leading my small business forward. Whatever direction or vision I feel is going to be the best decision for the company, our customers, and our employees will be my personal driving force and dictate how I conduct myself as their leader. Changing the culture of an organization, large or small, starts with the leadership. Every decision I make, every change I implement, and every action made must reflect the overall vision and goal of the company. Change is a good thing, and getting your people behind it is the only way to make change work effectively.

50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

There are three types of people in the world. There are the can-do's, the can't-do's and the watchers. The can't-do's are comprised of those who make excuses why things can't be done. For this type of person their excuses are valid, logical, and endless. It is not that don't want things to change, it's more of an internal belief that the changes just won't work. Dr. Daryl Watkins address a list of 50 reasons most commonly used by people who just don't (or won't) accept change in his presentation 50 Reasons not to Change. Unfortunately, there are a lot of can't do's in the world either by a lack of understanding, education, or unwillingness to swim against the current. Maybe it is because risk is a two sided coin, or they like "the way things are".

The second group of people are the can do's. To these folks anything and everything is possible. Obstacles are opportunities in disguise, and hurdles are there to make accomplishment that much more rewarding. These are the people who have established democracy, sent men to the moon, and fought for human rights. They will find a way to make things work. To these types of people there is always a way, they just have to find it. Fortunately, there very few of these types of people because the efforts of the few have always effected the greatest change.

And then there are the watchers. These are the undecided ones. The "maybe" people. They can be swayed towards the can't-do's through hesitation, or towards the can-do's by inspiration. "What if" is the deciding question the watchers ask themselves. This is the fence they sit on, and they are susceptible to influence.

When I was clicking through Dr. Watkins' presentation I was thinking to myself, "Yep, I have heard that before". Heck, I've even said them before. I admittedly accept that I was a can-do trapped inside a can't-do for a long time. For me, it took stepping out of my bubble, interacting with people who often failed, but never failed to get the job done. I started to meet a few people who quit on quitting, and was unshackled from my can't-do self. My father used to tell me that if one can do it so can another, they just might have to try harder. Now, I don't even acknowledge the excuses of the can't-do. They are just one more obstacle in my way towards progress. However, when I hear some of the reasons not to change I become more aware of the type of people I am working with, which helps me gauge the amount of effort I will expect to put in to prove them wrong.

The biggest difference between the can't-do's and the can-do's is attitude. If you believe, you can achieve. Our attitudes are directly affected by the changes we encounter on a daily basis. We either focus on the negatives or on the positives. Seth Godin opened his TedTV speech, The Tribes We Lead, by arguing that what we do is try to change everything. We try to focus on what bothers us and either complain about or try to fix it. He talks about Nathan Winograd who effectively changed PETA from an animal destroying agency to one that adopts out abandoned animals. He talks about Henry Ford who changed the way we manufactured automobiles. He talks about the can-do's and how making a positive difference can help reshape the world we live in. In essence Seth Godin is talking about converting the can't-do's and watchers into can-do's through action. He talks about tribes, and how people seek out others with shared interests. This is an important concept that reminds us that we do belong to a society, large or small, and positive changes can occur with just a spark among the tribe. We don't have to change the world, but if we infect our "tribe" with a can-do attitude and make positive changes within our "tribe" those changes could spread to other tribes and possibly effect change on a grand scale.

I chose to be a can-do. It is a choice. I have to listen for the seedlings of the can't-do's and squash them before they take root. There is no way I can convert all the can't-do's, but I can sway a few watchers and surely I can surround myself with can-do's. I do this by being positive, seeking out what bothers me and changing it, and infecting those around me with a can-do attitude. I don't have to change the world, but I can grab a hold of a good idea and give reasons for others to follow me. This is how I will make a stand and change our world... one tribe at a time.

JP

NASA Culture Change

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is one of the most complex agencies in the US government. They have sent men to the moon, satellites beyond our solar system, peered further into space than ever imagined, and advanced an age of unparalleled discovery. In other words, NASA is the premier pioneer for exploration of our known universe.

What makes NASA so extraordinary? I would say its human resource, innovative thinking, and a willingness to achieve mission success. However, with great exploration comes great risk and failure. January 28, 1986 NASA lost the shuttle Challenger along with her crew, and more recently the shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas upon reentry. The loss of life and billions of dollars invested in these programs forced NASA to take a close look at where they could have made better choices, safer operations, and really take a look at their organizational culture. As with any failure NASA needed to know where they went wrong.

NASA employed an external entity to compile data through surveys, interviews, and observation of the entire agency, and what the information showed was a very clear gap in management-employee interaction and a lack of encouragement for upward communication. It wasn't a lack of willingness that was the problem, it was the lack of leadership upholding the core values of NASA that helped contribute to these disasters. NASA's Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, spoke to his organization about this extensive diagnostic effort and delivered an honest account that focused on answering the question of where they went wrong, what they plan to do to fix the issues, and how these changes will ultimately make NASA the organization it has the potential to be.

O'Keefe spoke about the importance of respect for fellow colleagues. He commented on the lack of leadership support and the encouragement of open communications up and down the organizational structure. More importantly, Sean O'Keefe took full responsibility for these pitfalls as the most senior leader at NASA. His message focused on the need for a cultural change throughout the entire NASA family, and I believe he was sincere in his commitment to see these changes through.

NASA core values are safety, people, excellence, and integrity. Every one of these core values involve the human element to achieve. They are not systems that can be established with code or automated with robots and computers. They are "people" values. The diagnoses of the culture within NASA showed that these values were understood thoughout the organization, yet they were not being implemented into action. Basically, the leadership in NASA was not walking the talk, and this is what O'Keefe focused on in his speech. Values without action are nothing more than empty words. Changing this cultural mindset was the answer NASA needed to rebuild their organization into a safer, more innovative, and powerful force in exploration. It starts with the people.

As I was watching O'Keefe deliver his message I kept thinking about my past career as a sales manager for Toyota. While I was not figuring out how to get a rover to mars, I was thinking about how I could be more proactive with my sales team. The only way to know what was going on in the trenches was to venture out from behind my desk and get involved. Sure, I had inventory to manage, numbers to crunch, and bosses to report to every hour, but none of that was more important to me than engaging with our customers and the sales people helping them. I often found myself staying far beyond closing hours to finalize the work I could have done during my shift instead of interacting on the floor, but I never minded that extra effort. It paid dividends with our customers, my sales people, and the dealership. Because of this I was able to find solutions to problems as they developed and not after the fact. I can only imagine how what sorts of results NASA could achieve with that same drive and awareness in its leadership ranks.

Very soon I will be the general manager of a small organization of talented people in Corpus Christi. I was not chosen to make drastic changes in this store, but to improve on the systems in place. Taking what I have learned from NASA and Sean O'Keefe I will focus my efforts not only on the products we sell, or the market we sell to, but on the valuable input and talent of the employees we have. I will continue to be engaged with our staff just as I had been with Toyota. I believe that the lessons learned from NASA's cultural changes supersede industry boundaries, and employing cultural awareness is the foundation for turning a good organization into a great opportunity.

JP

How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

The speed of business in today's fast-paced and connected world can make or break a company. The traditional hierarchical organization chart with the few decision makers on top and the worker bees on the bottom does not fit well with a complex and adaptive nature required to compete in such a fast-paced environment. Why? It takes too long to make decisions.

Marcia Blenko, leader of Bain & Company's Global Organizational Practice, believes that the decision making process comprises the basic unit of an organization. In Marcia's interview with Harvard Business Review she discusses how companies can make better decisions faster. Her company proved their theory that making better decisions effectively increases financial performance across the scope of global corporations. In other words, businesses of all sizes and scope operate at a higher efficiency level when making the right decisions faster.

Marcia defines decision effectiveness by using four key points. These are:

• Quality - are you making good decisions?
• Speed - how fast is your decision making process?
• Yield - how well do you execute the decisions you make?
• Effort - how much effort does it take to implement your decisions?

Using these key points and answering the respective questions can create an idea on how well an organization makes decisions. A company can be great at making good business decisions, but it may take them for ever. Another company might be amazing at making important decisions quickly, but doesn't take the time to ensure they are making the right decisions. According to Marcia, in order to move towards an effective and efficient business model a company must function well in all four of the key points of decision making. Each key point can be dissected into many separate parts that make up the whole. Filtering out the processes that make up a quality decision or the speed of how it is made ultimately will enable an organization to become more effective in making good decisions faster.

The data gathered from Bain & Company's Global Organization Practice shows that organizations that fire on all cylinders in regards to making good decisions faster also have a high employee engagement as a result. A more complex and adaptive organization utilizes its many resources to make its decision making process. Employee involvement in this process rewards the efforts of everyone involved in making a good decision for the company, and keeps people engaged. There is a connection, or ownership, of the decision when employees are encouraged to do the research, make suggestions, and help to implement the decisions they make. 

There are obstacles to the decision making process in a complex organization. When you flatten out the traditional organizational structure it may become difficult to know who actually has the decision making power. Is the right information getting to the right people? Do the people making the decisions have the talent and capability to make the right call? Is the leadership behavior indicative of making good decisions? The answers to these questions could help an organization gain a true idea of how decisions are actually made, or pinpoint where changes would be helpful in the process.

Marcia describes five steps to making good decisions faster. The first step is to know where your organization is at with the decision making process. Taking a hard look at any barriers within the process will enable leadership to assess areas that may need to be changed. Secondly, can the company identify critical decisions? Not all decisions are huge, change-the-world type decisions. Identifying and prioritizing decisions can help speed up the process. Next, identify what the decision is, who has the ability to make it, why the decision should be implemented, and when. Understanding these aspects of making decisions can enable the right people to make the right decisions at the right time. This is followed up with a sound support structure. It is important for the decision makers to know they have the support they need to turn the decisions into action. And finally, how well is the decision executed and being followed. Supervising the outcome is a good way to ensure you are receiving the desired results of a decision.

My understanding from Marcia's research and thoughts is that how well a company makes decisions in an appropriate amount of time is a good benchmark for the operational ability of an organization. Nothing stifles innovation and making sound business decisions more than a bunch of red tape. Reducing the obstacles in the process is a good thing, and organizations that streamline their decision making processes will rise to the top. In my business world it is important for me to gather as much information as I can to make logical suggestions to the owner of the company. The better I become at presenting sound and logical decisions along with a game plan to implement and supervise the results the more freedom I will have to make the decisions for my store. There is a level of risk in making any decision. However, taking what Marcia Blenko describes as the keys to making better decisions faster I am better equipped to the make the right decisions quickly and effectively for my organization.

JP

A Day in the Life of a Culture Committee

Southwest Airlines is know for its culture. Anyone who has flown on a Southwest flight probably experienced a fun and efficient few hours "moving about the country". The playful nature of the aircrew coupled with a sense of safety and procedure is unique to say the least. The make flying fun, and for the money we pay for tickets these days it should be.

While the amicable nature of Southwest employees is an external pleasantry it is fueled by an internal culture which fosters the idea of taking care of each other. Southwest culture can be better understood by reading the company's "culture mission" taken from their website. It states:

"Southwest Airlines' number one priority is to ensure the personal Safety of each Southwest Customer and Employee. Beyond this, we follow "The Golden Rule," meaning that we treat each other the way we want to be treated, which is why doing the right thing by our Employees and Customers is so inherent to who we are as a Company. We believe in Living the Southwest Way, which is to have a Warrior Spirit, a Servant's Heart, and a Fun-LUVing Attitude. Within each of these categories are specific behaviors to help us be a Safe, profitable, and a Fun place to work."

Living the Southwest Way includes a project called the Culture Committee. This committee randomly meets the plane at the terminal ramp with a group of SW employees bearing gifts of snacks, drinks, and push-vacuum to help clean up the plane as they prepare for the next flight. Usually, this is the job of the flight crew as the passengers deplane, and on long multi leg flights this can wear on the flight attendants. The act of taking over this responsibility allowing the flight crew to take a load off in between flights just one measure Southwest employs to make life a little more "Fun-LUVing". 

The purpose of the Culture Committee is to remind each employee that they belong to a family who appreciates their efforts. This is always a nice gesture to receive unexpectedly. Anyone who has surprised a spouse with a bouquet of flowers for doing an outstanding job taking care the house, or rewarded an coworker out of left field with a gift certificate to their favorite restaurant for a job well done, or baked some cookies for the mailman who delivers your bills everyday knows the feeling of random appreciation. It is the essence of what makes a family, or a community. It is people looking out for those they work with, live near, or communicate with on a daily basis. And, it feels good to be on the receiving end of such appreciation.

Ideas like the Southwest's Culture Committee reflect the professional values that act as the foundation for the culture of the company. Donald Brown states in his book The Experiential Approach to Organization Development that "a corporate culture gives the whole organization a sense of how to behave, what to do, and where to set the priorities in getting the job done" (pg. 65). You have to walk the talk for a true culture to take hold, and truly caring for those you work with is a good start.

In the Navy, my current employer, we try to instill this concepts in our Sailors. As you grow up through the ranks of leadership it is important to take care of those under your supervision. Rewarding someone with early liberty (time off) or a duty free weekend can really express gratitude for doing the right things and making the right choices. These are especially appreciated when they are unexpected. It shows that you care. I wish this were more of a Navy wide practice, as not all leaders share the same cultural values or beliefs. However, I always tried to take care of those who take care of me. 

I think the underlying message of Southwest Airline's Cultural Committee is that it is important to do little things that make people smile. Out of the blue, unexpected, and random acts of gratitude can really make a difference. Not only does it remind others you are thinking about them, but it fosters a cultural behavior to take care of each other. As I transition out of the Navy I will continue to find ways to show my gratitude and appreciation for those I work with. 

JP

21st Century Enlightenment

Matthew Taylor delivers an insight into the necessity of changing the way we view ourselves, our place in this world, and what it is going to take for us, as a civilized global community, to move towards a better tomorrow. His presentation titled 21st Century Enlightenment presents his audience with sensible concepts on how to recognize our current values, norms, and lifestyles in order to become a more self aware, socially embodied community, and the need to be more responsible as members of a global sociology.

Matthew relates some similarities to the Enlightenment period of the 18th Century to our current rapidly changing world by establishing the fact that a small group of free-thinkers discovered new and radical ideas rooted in sound theories and scientific foundations. People like Newton, Copernicus, and Galileo reshaped the way we view our roles in the universe through observation and logical thought processes. It was in these discoveries that the entire world began to change the way they thought about themselves and opened their minds to new methods perceiving what we believe to be true. New norms, values, and lifestyles emerged from the discoveries of these few historical figures. Different thoughts effectively changed the way people learned and ultimately lived within their known world.

Matthew believes that "In order to live differently, you have to think differently". He believes that any significant change in our society begins with what and how we think. How we view immigration, political authority, inclusion of religious ideals, and civil solidarity will inevitably shape our actions creating norms, values, and lifestyles. He states that we must move into a more global concept of empathy where we take into consideration the real and important power of understanding each other on a global scale. We are a culmination of what we think and how we act as a society, and making a conscious effort to rethink our own beliefs and values will help us to form a better community as a whole.

Taylor argues that we need to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange. Because we may not fully understand our own cultural norms and values completely, or those of another culture does not make these beliefs sound doctrine. I believe Matthew is talking about minimizing the weight we give to what we see everyday and employ a more critical thinking process to uncover the reasoning behind our thoughts and beliefs. For example, my organization (the US Navy) is steeped in traditions that may at times stifle or hinder forward progress that could benefit our overall mission to provide a more diverse culture of American Sailors working together for a common goal. Only recently has the Navy reduced some long lasting barriers regarding race, gender, and sexual orientation which has allowed our Sailors to learn from a more broad pool of resources. By changing the way the Navy views the individual Sailor we have become a more formidable force, rich with a diverse culture.

Change on a grand scale never comes easily. To affect change in our minds we must first reduce our prejudices based in misunderstanding. It is easier to change the materialistic than it is to change our idealistic views. However, this is not impossible. becoming more empathetic to other cultures and individual practices can be attained by merely developing a genuine desire to learn about other people, societies, and cultures. Developing the ability to put aside assumptions based on the unknown and replacing them with learned experiences is the first step in creating a more empathetic society.

Summing up Matthew's presentation, he believes that in order to truly create a 21st Century Enlightenment we must discover who we are as human beings, discover who we want to be, and more importantly develop an understanding of what we aspire to be. By establishing these charges each individual can affect change in their sphere of influence. He quotes Margaret Mead who said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has". Change starts from within. I have committed myself to be a better thinker, more empathetic to those around me, and to subdue my assumptions based on my past values, norms, and beliefs. Doing this enables me to play my part in changing my thoughts of the world in which I live. We all have an important part to play for a 21st Century Enlightenment to take effect.

Please take the time and watch Matthew Taylor's presentation 21st Century Enlightenment 

JP

Board of Directors: A Tale of Power and Vision

May 6, 1954, Roger Bannister proved to the world that a sub-four minute mile was possible. Prior to this unbelievable feat the notion of running a mile in less than four minutes was considered impossible to overcome. Runners tried in vain to disprove this belief, but it took one man with vision, power, and a little help from a few teammates to show the world that impossible is not the end of the road, but a beginning of new possibilities.

Since Bannister's declaration of will thousands of athletes have broken the four minute mile, some shattering the record by ten seconds or more. All it took was someone to pave the way and the crowd followed. This can be said for other examples like breaking the sound barrier, landing a man on the moon, or sending a rover to Mars. All it takes is a vision and the will to see that vision through.

Now, most visionaries are part of a lonesome crowd. The majority of people fall into two distinct categories. There are those who believe that limitations and barriers are present for a purpose... they can't be broken. These are the pessimists. The other group are those who assess their own beliefs in terms of successes and failures. They are called pragmatics. Visionaries believe that limitations and boundaries exist to be shattered, overcome, and discarded. It is within this small and powerful minority that the most amazing innovations have transformed the impossible into the possible.

In today's world we are witnessing changes occur at break neck speeds. Advances in technology, communications, and innovation have ushered in an era of constant and rapid change. Donald Brown, author of An Experiential Approach to Organization Development, believes that there are two types of companies in this Brave New World: those that are changing, and those who are going out of business. There is no room for those pessimists and pragmatics who can't or won't make the necessary leaps to find new and creative ways to move forward. It takes visionaries, believers, and power players to bridge the gap between the present and future, proving to the world what is and isn't possible.

In my organization, the United States Navy, we have overcome many barriers to earn us the title of "The World's Finest Navy". When FDR sent the Great White Fleet around the world to demonstrate our global reach and capabilities he was sending a message to our allies and enemies alike that the United States is willing and able to span the globe as a dominant naval adversary. Organizationally we have crashed through race, gender, religious, and even sexual preference barriers to maximize our strengths and diversity. None of these feats could have been possible without the visionaries paving the way. Today, our Navy can respond to any threat or call anywhere in the world in 48 hours. I wonder what John Paul Jones would think of that.

There will always be those who doubt what is possible. Thankfully, there will also be those few who view the impossible as a taunt or challenge and kick open the doors of opportunity for others to follow, just as Roger Bannister did back in 1954. No matter where the line is drawn there will always be someone figuring out a way to step through and continue on the path of discovery, advancement, and embracing our inevitable world of change.

jody powell