The death of Vaclav Havel yesterday reminds me of the essence of politics, the greater sense of service and community that defines politics in its purest form. Havel, a dissident, playwright and the first president of the Czech republic after the fall of communism, believed in a politics was that was “a practical morality, as service to the truth, as essentially human and humanly measured care for our fellow humans.”

His rhetoric about community and relationship is missing in our current polarized and polarizing political climate. Long before people spoke of emotional intelligence, Havel was championing it. In discussing what he learned during his tenure as President of the Czech Republic, Havel says he realized that the most essential assets for any politician are

fellow-feeling, the ability to talk to others, insight, the capacity to grasp quickly not only problems but also human character, the ability to make contact, a sense of moderation: all these are immensely more important in politics.

Is there still room for such kind of politicians? Am I naïve to believe that politics could someday embody these ideals? Perhaps. Yet I hold out the hope that we can and will get there one day.

On Friday we shipped off the binders – must have been at least 10 – to the Distance Education  and Training Council offices with our application for accreditation for the Process Work Institute. It’s been a grueling couple of months. Those close to me know the gory details, as does anyone who has worked on an immense project with inhuman workloads and impossible deadlines.   It’s madness, and it brings out the best and worst of people.

So this morning, for the first time in months, I have a clear desk (sort of) and time to look ahead at my next projects, and pick up some things that have been neglected in the process (eg, my blog!). In a few weeks I’ll be in Toronto again, invited by my friends Annahid and Shakil at the Anima Leadership Institute to offer a workshop, “From Conflict to Collaboration.” And following that, I’m lucky to be the guest presenter at the Summer Leadership Institute at the University of Toronto school of Applied Science and Engineering. I’ll be presenting a workshop called “Tools and Techniques for High Performance, Cross-Disciplinary Teams.” (more…)

I was browsing through some old movies the other day and came across Love Story. Remember Love Story, Ryan O’Neal and Ali MacGraw? The line the movie made famous was Love Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry. I was a teenager when the movie came out, and I thought that sounded pretty cool. Looking back, I think it’s ridiculous. If anything, love means having to say you’re sorry… often. Or as John Lennon said, love means having to say you’re sorry every 15 minutes. (more…)

Recently my father sent me a package filled with letters, newspaper clippings and memorabilia about my aunt, Leila Diamond. Leila was a scientist, a cancer researcher, at a time when most cancer researchers were men. The few women scientists that were out there were supposed to do “gentle research,” as one of her colleagues said. Electron microscopy and tissue culture (neither of which sound to me, a non-scientist, very gentle) were some of the ‘acceptable’ research areas for women. Leila, in her quiet and dignified way, paved the way for women in science. She was a mentor to many young female scientists, and was a founder of WICR, Women in Cancer Research. Reading through the letters and emails that poured in following her death, I was greatly moved to hear how she inspired and supported younger colleagues.

This tribute from one of her colleagues stands out above the rest:

When I read the obituary from the Philadelphia newspaper, I was disturbed by the line that said: “there are no other immediate survivors.” On the contrary, there are hundreds, probably thousands, of her immediate survivors to be found among the many women scientists she inspired and mentored during her career. We are among her intellectual and professional family. Each of our future achievements will be a testament to her faith in us and her contribution to our scientific progress.

And by the way, January is National Mentoring Month. None of us got here without the help of someone else. We stand on the shoulders of others whether they mentored us directly, or spent their lives, as Leila did, paving the way for others. Time to say thank you.

I’m enjoying teaching an advanced symposium this semester on applying Process Work at the Process Work Institute. We’re looking at the challenges of the so-called Wanderjarhe – the post training phase of developing mastery and becoming a craftsperson. In the Medieval European tradition once the apprenticeship was completed, in order for the apprentice to become a craftsman he had to gain experience moving from one town to the other, applying his skills in different settings, and under different craftsmen. This became a very crucial part of the development of the craftsperson.

Fast forward a few centuries, and the still need remains, but the traditions have changed. Moving from mastery of (often theoretical) knowledge to mastery of craft takes a long time. In some professions the route is straightforward: you gain an entry level position and work your way up. But if people go into private practice or consulting, or become sole proprietors of a professional service business like counseling, coaching, psychotherapy, or facilitating, it’s a more circuitous route. In a way, it’s a start-up. But where a tech start up requires a big infusion of cash, starting up a business that is your own professional service requires a big infusion of, well, other things. Here are some of the things we’ve been discussing in class. These are true for anyone starting their own business, non-profit, association, or pursuing a cause. (more…)

Last week the American Psychiatric Associations released a draft of DSM-V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The final version is set to come out in May 2013. It has a number of proposed revisions which have been widely blogged about, including a new diagnosis of hypersexuality. In just about every post I’ve read, at some point, the author proposes Tiger Woods as the poster child for this new diagnosis.

As a blog on power and leadership, I’ve spent a fair amount of time here discussing instances in which power goes awry, in particular, why and how public figures and leaders torpedo their careers by engaging in risky sexual behavior. How can public figures like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer and Tiger Woods, believe their sexual behavior can be kept secret from the world?  It is easy to see it as a mental disorder and it very well may be. Undoubtedly we’ll even find the gene that’s responsible, but making this a medical disorder keeps us from contemplating it as a behavior on a continuum, one we’re all prone to. (more…)

The last decade is a strong contender for the title “the decade of dubious leadership.” From the handling of Katrina to the collapse of the banking system, it was a disastrous decade for leadership. Ironically, it was also a decade during which more was written on leadership than ever before. I’m hoping for a better decade of leadership, and here are my top five leadership trends I’d like to see take off in the coming years. (more…)

In Brisbane this week and I just finished teaching a seminar on the Unfinished Work of Ancestors, exploring how our relative ease and/or discomfort in the world is influenced by generational issues and attitudes, known and unknown, seen and unseen. The wars, famines, forced migrations, poverty, and challenges of our ancestors still reverberate through us today, and influence how we live with others, deal with such issues as money, relationship, work, authority.

Is it really possible to change our patterns of behavior that have been laid down for generations? How long does it take to start a new pattern when there are powerful generational forces influencing us?

It requires far more than a change of circumstance or fortune to change behaviors. It requires a new attitude, new worldviews and these are difficult to establish. research into changing generational patterns concerning poverty and education show that, among others, the follow two factors are crucial in helping change behavior:

• mentoring and relationship, someone who not only advises or supports the change, but who models the new behavior, giving us picture of a new possibility.
• high expectations, a parent, teacher, mentor or family friend who expects us to succeed.

In short, a different worldview about ourselves and about what’s possible.

Iâ??ve got the task of developing a performance evaluation process with and for faculty at the Process Work Institute. Weâ??re a small training institute, and while we have had many different forums for feedback and evaluation, weâ??ve not created a standardized process that is tied to accountability.

Itâ??s a tricky process. As a colleague pointed out, itâ??s been a steep learning curve. Weâ??ve run into many snarls en route to developing this performance evaluation procedure. The topic is a minefield, on both sides, for the evaluated and the evaluator. For starters, itâ??s basically about being judged â?? am I good or bad? And trust. Can I trust whoâ??s evaluating me? What about the disgruntled colleague or student who has it in for me? Or that the feedback is filtered through the personality of the other person, complete with their values, beliefs about me, biases, etc. And of course, now that we are moving towards performance evaluation as mandatory, it raises the twin issues of motivation and resistance. Whatâ??s in it for me? Why should I jump that hoop? And do these standards relate to my own personal growth goals? And probably one of the biggest difficulties is that, like any tight knit organization, we sit comfortably in a single loop learning style â?? we have our way of looking at things and doing things, and when it comes to performance evaluation, we can police ourselves thank you very much.

But of course we canâ??t. And we know that. So we want the opportunity to reflect on ourselves, to a degree. Because itâ??s also human nature to bristle at anyone who points out any kind of flaw, even if they call it a â??challengeâ?? or â??opportunity.â?? We know negative feedback and criticism, no matter what perfume it has on.

I could write volumes on this, and others have, better than I can. So, the point I want to focus on is the question of accountability. Why do we, or does any organization, need evaluations, and accountability procedures? Why does bureaucracy have to intervene here?

As I ponder it, I think the real meaning of performance evaluation is a cost analysis: does what you add to a group outweigh what you cost your colleagues, customers, and organization? That sounds harsh to think that who we are has a price tag, but it does. Mostly, we add value. But itâ??s often hard to see the price others pay in getting along with us. Even our talents come with a price. I have a great talent at seeing the bigger picture, and this comes with the cost of frequently neglecting details and making small mistakes that definitely cause some teeth grinding downstream. Or, if I am difficult to collaborate with, I make the atmosphere tense, if I derail the conversation, neglecting the deadline that the other team members are trying to meet, I cost those around me in terms of energy, emotional wear and tear.

The problem isnâ??t what we cost; the problem is not knowing that cost, and not taking measures to reduce the difference between our value and our costs. For instance, if I am sloppy with details (as I am), and I send out information with the wrong date, this means that the office staff or my organizer has to spend extra time chasing me down to correct dates, sending out corrections, and responding to questions because people have been misinformed. In order to mitigate that cost, I need to do something â?? apologize, offer to help write the emails or mail out the corrections, or offer to pay extra money for the extra time involved. If I donâ??t, if I just assume someone else will clean up that mess, and anyway, mistakes happen, then laws, regulatory agencies, performance reviews, police forces, etc., spring up to fulfill the function I neglect.

Whatever we miss doing for ourselves, we outsource to another body. But this escalates the problem, and brings in force or power of some kind. If two people canâ??t resolve a fight alone, then a third party comes in to resolve it for them. When we outsource it to another we use power in place of natural consequences.

Barbara Coloroso, a parenting expert, uses the concept of natural consequences in parenting. Rather than controlling behavior through force or might (â??Do so because I say so!â??) children should learn that what they do has consequences for which they are responsible. You throw a cigarette butt out your house window and start a fire next door that threatens your home as well. You see and experience the consequences of your action, and are forced to take steps to counter it. But we seldom have that proximity to the effects of our action. We have lost contact between cause and effect. So laws are created that replace natural consequences with force. Donâ??t do this because the government says so. Now itâ??s impersonal, and there is no longer a reason attached. The violator, the one who throws the butt out the window, whether he obeys the law or not, is still dissociated from the loss of habitat, cost to taxpayers, homelessness, and the myriad issues caused by that one action.

Getting back to the issue of performance evaluation â??I donâ??t deal with my sloppiness, and eventually the office staff complains. So a new law gets posted: if you make a mistake on your dates, you are responsible for making the correction, or something like that. But now itâ??s bureaucracy, an arbitrary law. I might improve, but I probably wonâ??t. Even more significantly, I havenâ??t become more aware of what I cost.

I believe this is one of the reasons evaluators chafe at their role. Not only because they may not be trained for it, but also because they are recruited into the role because the person isnâ??t evaluating themselves sufficiently. The function really belongs to the one being evaluated. Thatâ??s why, in the way we do feedback at the Process Work Institute, we make a big point of training the ones giving and getting feedback to take the other roles.

The one receiving feedback should already know that feedback â?? itâ??s only coming to them from the outside because they somehow missed it. Feedback we donâ??t know about ourselves catches us by surprise, and is the worst kind. It hurts the most to receive criticism about something we donâ??t know about ourselves. But we should. We should be in touch with our cost, and have a sense of how we are received. On the other side of the equation, giving feedback is hardest when the person receiving it doesnâ??t already know about. Itâ??s for these reasons that the real learning involved in evaluation is less about substance (what should I focus on) and more about the process (Do I already know this, and if not, why not?).

And the big question is, why donâ??t we? Thereâ??s been a lot written about this, especially recently. Itâ??s a well know problem in social psychology that people chronically overrate their performance (unless they are  depressed). Cornell psychologist David Dunning, PhD. is one of the top researchers in this field. Heâ??s found that in North American culture, people overestimate their abilities, and that the least competent performers inflate their abilities the most. No one really knows for sure why this is the case. People are definitely prone to bias. They overrate the particular areas they excel at, and minimize the importance of those areas they donâ??t excel at. For instance, people with verbal ability would overestimate the role verbal ability, in contrast to mathematical ability, plays in intelligence. Or task focused people would rate task orientation as the most important leadership trait on a questionnaire about what makes a good leader.

Another reason we donâ??t see ourselves more clearly is due to fundamental attribution error, meaning, we tend to give credit to ourselves for a positive outcome, and lay the blame elsewhere for a negative outcome. Additionally, we seldom receive accurate feedback about ourselves. People tend to give each other more positive feedback to their faces, but say negative things behind their back. Finally, people lack the information they need to fully assess themselves; the paradox is that our incompetence makes us incompetent to accurately judge ourselves.

But another reason is that we donâ??t see ourselves as part of the whole. Itâ??s one of the reasons we struggle to see the environmental impact of our decisions, or the nutritional and health impact of our behaviors. Social marketers who try to educate the public about health issues such as skin cancer, AIDS awareness, smoking, and drunk driving, have to contend with this problem a lot: How do we get people to relate to the consequences of their actions? In organizations, how do we get people to identify with the organizational itself, not just their job, team, or silo?

Power is used as the intermediary between people, between individuals and whole. Rules and law force us to be responsible to each other, to think of the whole when we have lost our ability to do so. Weâ??ve made a big leap from performance evaluation to politics, but I think the common denominator is the essence of organization – association and affiliation. When we donâ??t affiliate with others, we outsource that task to the government or bureaucracy, and then inveigh against its restrictive rules and regulations. But we can and should police ourselves, not out of a sense of duty or morality, but out of the sense of connection and community. It reminds me of how Gandhi understood freedom â?? not as the ability to do whatever you wanted, but as liberation from the prison of dualism â?? that we are separate from each other. Democracy has always been a tension between its two parts: demos (people, community) and kratie (power, law). While we struggle to comprehend community, to identify with the demos, we depend on kratie, the power to force affiliation, but in the absence of heart, it becomes mere obedience.

Iâ??m offering a series called Women in Leadership beginning this June. It was something I had in mind for a while, but what prompted me to do it now was an article I read called the portability study. The portability study sought to find out how well star performers did when hired away by competitors. The study found something surprising and something unexpected: the starâ??s performance plunged, and did the market value of the new company. But one group maintained their performance: women.

Looking for explanations, the researchers found that because women built their careers more on external networks and relationships with clients outside their companies, their external networks and outside contacts made them more portable. By contrast, men tended to have stronger internal networks and relationships and thus, when transferring to another firm, were at a marked disadvantage. Their success was in part due to their relationships within their firms. Womenâ??s ability to develop strong external networks is certainly not a gender trait, but a learned survival skill. Not breaking in easily to the â??old boy networks,â?? women were forced to turn to relationships outside their teams or firms for support.

The study excited me, because it underlined something which is all too often missing from discussions about diversity in the workplace. Groups on the margins have knowledge, skills and abilities developed through the very challenges of their marginality. These marginal knowledges are critical for the health of the center. In fashion and entertainment, it is well know that trends begin on the margins. And in studies on creativity and innovation, lateral thinking, peripheral vision, cross-disciplinary thinking are critical ingredients for innovations and breakthrough ideas. In other words, the margins are a locus of change, innovation and development. There, out of necessity, new knowledge is crafted, new perspectives are developed, survival skills crafted.

This isnâ??t new, but this way of thinking about marginality is often lacking when diversity in the workplace is discussed. The perspective that women or people of color are the problem, and need legal or political intervention, misses the knowledge and skills marginalized groups bring to the table. Put another way, itâ??s not the margins that are the problem, itâ??s the center. Without the valuable information and perspective from groups outside the center, the center withers. The underuse of talent and knowledge from marginalized groups has a profound impact on the bottom line, and also on the cultural bottom line.

So, the question is, and what I will explore in my Women in Leadership groups is not, how can we develop the skills and knowledge required to compete successfully in the center, but how can we become aware of, develop, and use the specialized skills and knowledge we have gained from our experiences to not only succeed in leadership positions, but to become the innovators and transformers the center needs?