We're the They.
'No us and them. Just us.'
- Fr Greg Boyle
It sounded like a good idea.
She scheduled dozens of meetings to personally present the draft new workplace agreement to every one of the hundreds of staff members.
'We think that these new conditions are reasonable,' she repeated to each audience. 'But the Union disagrees. They won't negotiate with us. They are holding up the process.'
'We think that the increase in pay is generous,' she declared. 'But the Union wants more money and we can't afford it and so They are stalling your pay rises.'
The Union represented the staff in the agreement negotiations. One in five of the people in each audience was a Union member.
We were the They.
The manager calls a meeting to get advice.
'We need to confidentially access some staff computer and mobile phone logs to find evidence of misconduct.'
The IT Manager says 'We can do it and They won't know'. The Lawyer says 'We have legal authority and They don't need to consent.' The HR Adviser says 'We have contracts and They have agreed We have that power.' The Compliance Manager says 'We'll record that They did not need to consent.' The Line Manager says 'Good idea and They should know that We monitor them.' The Personal Assistant takes Minutes about what We will do to They. We nod that We agree with what needs to be done about They.
We vacate our chairs without making eye contact with a different team of advisers coming to meet with the manager and he closes his Open Door door.
We return to our respective desks, and resume being They.
Advisers come and go from the manager's office closing the Open Door door.
Our spouses, work and social friends all wonder why we've changed to Gmail and have a new personal phone number and use it to text during business hours instead of email and don't update our Facebook and can't book the children's concert tickets online at 9am before they're sold out and don't come to Friday drinks with the boss as much and haven't re-nominated for the social committee and take a few more sick days and have asked the boss from our last job to be a referee.
The manager pays consultants to help him improve teamwork and morale.
'We'll run off-site trust games. They will love them. We'll put blindfolds on them and They will fall backwards and We'll catch them.'
From Habits and Fears.
'The decision we will make....is a choice between....the habits and fears of the past, and the demands and opportunities of the future.'
- Gough Whitlam, Australian Prime Minister, 13 November 1972
'The Whitlam program as laid out in the 1972 election platform consisted three objectives: to promote equality, to involve the people of Australia in the decision-making processes of our land, and to liberate the talents and uplift the horizons of the Australian people.
This program is as fresh as it was when first conceived. It scarcely could be better articulated today.
Who would not say the vitality of our democracy is a proper mission of government and should not be renewed and invigorated.
Who can say that liberating the talents and uplifting the horizons of Australians is not a worthy charter for national leadership?'
- Noel Pearson, Eulogy for Gough Whitlam
'The essence of leadership is being aware of your fear, and seeing it in the people you wish to lead'
Seth Godin
'Am I any good? That's what I'd like to know and all I need to know.'
- Robert Frost, Four Times Pulitzer Prize winning Poet Laureate.
The first job of a Leader is to Create the Space.
Then invite us to raise our fearful eyes from white knuckles gripping our habits and towards our horizon.
And to remind us:
'You are good enough.'
The Secret Deal With the Boss.
'Leaders and followers collude in the imagining of leadership as heroic feats that will fix problems and usher in a new era. These practices are seductive because they release individuals from the work of leading themselves, from taking responsibility for thinking through difficult problems and for critical decision-making.'
- Amanda Sinclair, Leadership for the Disillusioned
The dominant narrative in Leadership is the Leader as hero, protector, parent.
A recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek is evidence of the power this story has in our culture.
It also shows the myth of 'If only I had more power, things would be different'.
The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world.
The article quoted 'administration veterans' as saying that President Obama responds to crises in 'a very rational way, trying to gather facts, rely on the best expert advice, and mobilise the necessary resources'. He is said to treat a crisis 'as an intellectual inquiry' where he 'develops his response through an intensely rational process'.
'As former CIA Director Leon Panetta said recently in a TV interview, “He approaches things like a law professor in presenting the logic of his position.”'
In doing so, he is said to 'adhere to intellectual rigour, regardless of the public's emotional needs'.
President Obama 'disdains the performative aspects of his job' and resists 'the theatrical nature to the presidency.'
These characteristics of the President were cited as weaknesses.
The article quoted a poll that found that 65 percent of Americans say they fear a widespread outbreak of Ebola in the U.S, despite the facts showing otherwise. 'People fear what they can’t control, and when the government can’t control it either, the fear ratchets up to panic.'
(26 per cent of Americans also think that the Sun revolves around the Earth and more of them think that President Obama is a Muslim than believe in the theory of Evolution.)
The President was said to be 'hampered' by 'an unwillingness or inability to demonstrate the forcefulness Americans expect of their president in an emergency.'
'A thought bubble over his head seems to say: “I can’t believe everybody’s flipping out about this stuff!” But as Panetta also said, “My experience in Washington is that logic alone doesn’t work.”'
The article acknowledges that President Obama's record 'even on issues where he’s drawn heavy criticism', is often much better than the initial impression would lead one to believe.
'He may tackle crises in a way that ignores the public mood, yet things generally turn out pretty well in the end. He and his economic team, though deeply unpopular, halted the financial panic and brought about a recovery that’s added jobs for 55 consecutive months. His signature health-care law addressed a slower-moving crisis; while similarly unpopular, it has delivered health insurance to more than 10 million people. Even Deepwater Horizon was nothing like the environmental cataclysm it threatened to become. “It really became a parable of how government can mobilize to solve a big problem,” Axelrod says. And he adds, “Bush didn’t get bin Laden—Obama did.”
And yet...
Author Peter Block noted the dominant 'patriarchal leadership narrative' when he said that:
'Obama is reluctant to attack Syria. When he decides to consult with Congress on it he's considered like he's waffling...and then when Russia comes along and says 'Wait a second you don't have to attack I think we can reach an agreement' and they play a good third party role, [it is portrayed as] a sign of Presidential weakness that he allowed another country not so friendly to us to be decisive in bringing peace and avoiding war in the world. That interpretation of events is what we're dealing with. There needs to be an alternative narrative - an alternative story telling.'
One of the hardest demands on a new leader is to resist the pressure to take people to where they already are.
A leader invites people to go where they otherwise wouldn't.
She needs confidence in her Widget before she can invite us to join her in its creation.
She assumes the best in us that we crave to be discovered and acknowledged.
She draws us out of the comfort of our fears and prejudices and oppressive, suffocating narratives, cadences and routines - and into the anxiety that is the surest sign that we are free.
Limitations Liberate.
'Leadership should be aimed at helping to free people from oppressive structures, practices and habits encountered in societies and institutions, as well as within the shady recesses of ourselves. Good leaders liberate.'
Amanda Sinclair, Leadership for the Disillusioned
A Leader Creates the Space.
This implies boundaries.
Boundaries give certainty of the resources - time, materials, people - with which to create.
Limits, rules, policies, regulations, contracts, processes, checklists - liberate.
The Leader, having created the space and its boundaries, stretches out her hand to us sheltering in our shady recesses and says:
'Come out and play!'
We Are Wide Open to Criticisms.
The Blue Angels is the United States Navy's flight demonstration squadron.
Its Widget is 'to showcase the pride and professionalism of the United States Navy and Marine Corps by inspiring a culture of excellence and service to country through flight demonstrations and community outreach.'
After every flight the team goes through a critical debriefing process which they consider is as important as the actual flight itself. They talk about what worked, what didn't, and 'no punches are pulled'.
'We are as wide open as can possibly be to criticisms. We want to become our own worst critics.'
The debriefing process takes twice as long as the flight took. 'Rank doesn't come into play.'
'We have a term that we use: 'Glad to be here''. It's a way of reminding themselves of the privilege of flying with the Blue Angels while their fellow pilots are doing night carrier landings in the Mediterranean Sea.
'We have two 'critiquers' on the ground that look at the manoeuvres and tell us their impressions basically.'
'We make these mistakes and we 'fess up to them and we do it every time we fly. It's an extremely important aspect of what we do. What we do after we've said it is 'I've made this mistake. I'll fix it. You always say you're going to fix it It leaves the rest of us with the feeling that you've recognised your mistake and you're going to take corrective action not to let it happen again. So it doesn't drop our confidence level in another person in the formation.'
'You gotta be able to learn each and every time you go flying because there's never been the perfect flight demonstration yet.'
Simply Did.
'I never thought of success or failure. I simply did what I wanted to do.'
- Isamu Akasaki, 2014 Joint Winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics
No Success.
No Failure.
No Management.
No Leadership.
No Team.
No Committed.
No Passionate.
No Marketing.
No words, words, words, words, words, words...
He simply did what he wanted to do.
Widget Clarity.
Widget Bliss.
Simple.
Circular Error Probable.
The Circular Error Probable (CEP) is the radius of a circle within which half the bombs dropped by an aircraft are expected to fall.
In World War II the CEP for 'dumb' iron bombs was measured in miles - hence 1,000 bombers area bombing cities to hit a single factory.
The CEP of today's 'smart' laser guided weapons is three metres.
The CEP increases by 200% if the aircraft comes under fire.
Evasive survival manoeuvres reduce target accuracy.
It's more likely to miss.
Nice analogy when you're taking aim at your Widget.
Or sniping at someone aiming for theirs.
The Divisive Decisive and The Indecision Villain.
'For the perfect accomplishment of any art, you must get this feeling of the eternal present into your bones — for it is the secret of proper timing. No rush. No dawdle. Just the sense of flowing with the course of events in the same way that you dance to music, neither trying to outpace it nor lagging behind. Hurrying and delaying are alike ways of trying to resist the present.'
- Alan Watts
We boo the Indecision Villain.
We cheer the Divisive Decisive.
Both share the awkward discomfort of their uninvited guest: New Information.
('Behind you! Behind you!)
The Divisive Decisive waves their Positional Power Wand over New Information and says the magic words:
'I think that...'
And magically pulls Decisions out of...their...hat.
The Indecision Villain just ignores New Information.
Boo!
The Good Decision Maker sits with New Information for a while.
Then - feeling the eternal in their bones - rises and takes New Information into the space created by the Leader.
Counts out the Organisation's Widget rhythm (Step 2, two three, Step 3, two three...)
And they dance.
Secured by the Secret Service.
On 19 September Omar Gonzales jumped the fence of the home of the President of the United States armed with a knife.
He sprinted across the White House lawn towards the front door.
The plainclothes surveillance team whose job it is to detect fence jumpers and protect the most powerful man in the world didn't stop him.
The Secret Service officer in the North Lawn guardhouse did not stop him.
The attack dog did not stop him.
The Secret Service guard at the front door did not stop him.
The SWAT team at the front door did not stop him.
The alarm box designed to alert the building to an intruder had been muted.
The intruder was finally tackled inside the East Room.
Seven successive failures in decision making.
16 breaches of White House security in the last five years. Six this year. 'Hundreds' have approached the perimeter and made verbal threats.
The fear of being wrong is understandably a major influence on our decision making.
As someone wrote - we tend to compare our bloopers with everyone else's highlight reel.
Yet if the United States Secret Service - with a budget of $1.8 billion and the job of protecting the most powerful man in the world - can fail in each of seven layers of defence - we can feel a little better about getting it wrong.
Be Open to Surprises.
The Chief Executive of the organisation that governed most of the civilised world for the last two thousand years has some claim to know about good decision making.
As the boss of the largest private employer in Australia with 180,000 employees, over $100 billion in assets and an annual income of over $15 billion, he's worth listening to - regardless of whether you are a customer.
Earlier this week he warned about the risk of creating 'masterpiece' systems hat were so perfect that they closed themselves off from the potential for 'surprise'.
He reminded us that we need to remember that we are 'on a journey....and when we set out on a journey, when we are on our path, we always encounter new things, things we did not know.'
He reminded us that the law - systems - are not ends in themselves - but the means to an end. If those systems do not bring is to our Widget - then they are 'dead'.
He said that we should ask ourselves: 'Am I attached to my things, my ideas, [are they] closed? Or am I open to...surprises? Am I at a standstill or am I on a journey?'
A good decision is one that advances us towards where we want to be.
Good decision making is a deliberate process of inquiry - a journey open to 'surprises' - that advances us towards where we want to be.
The challenge for organisations - whether the Roman Catholic Church or a factory - and those of us leading them - Pope Francis or a line manager - or the rest of us in the pews or in open plan cubicles - is to create and maintain a framework for decision making that does not tether us but frees us to be surprised.
That takes courage.
And leaders who are brave.
Go Widget or Go Home.
'I wish to God that you protected the White House like you are protecting your reputation here today. I wish you spent that time in that effort to protect the American President and his family...'
- Representative Stephen Lynch to Director of the Secret Service, Julia Pierson.
Widget focus helps us to apply our finite reserves of time and intellectual and emotional energy towards the job that we are paid to do and by which we will be measured and which will give us currency and calories - and more.
If we divert time and energy away from building our boss's Widget and towards defending our ego, we weaken our ability to produce the thing that will answer our critics.
Amidst the noise and distraction of information and our fight-or-flight responses, the Five Steps towards a good decision keep us focussed and on task.
Even when the Widget battle is lost, we should resist the urge to go down fighting for our ego.
Begin building our next Widget for our next boss by learning what went wrong with our construction of this one.
Because the boss is always right.
Three Points of Contact.
'Speak as they please, what does the mountain care?
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?'
Course 1 of 90 Officer Training School learned Rock Climbing at Mount Arapiles during Exercise Discovery. Cute.
Four holds on the rock face - both hands and both feet - in the known. Secure. For as long as the muscles can hold your weight.
Keep at least three points of contact on the rock face at all times. Reach for the next hold with one hand or foot at a time.
That was me. Halfway up a cliff face.
Abandon one of those holds and stretch out an arm or a leg to inquire of the rock face above. Feel. Grasp. Test. Commit. Move.
That wasn't me.
I wasn't inquiring. I only had the strength to hold on. My legs were trembling with the strain - the 'sewing machine leg' we'd been warned about by our instructors.
To move I had to reach above and feel for a hand hold. I didn't know if I'd find one. I did know that the effort would suck my energy and probably for no gain. So I held on.
An instructor abseiled down beside me and I hated his encouragement that there were holds above me if I reached up because he was sitting in a harness of six month old blue sterling fusion nano rope and I was clinging to million year old quartzite.
Purely to hasten the standard tedious 'What did you learn from that?' debrief that we had at the top half an hour later I put up my hand and said 'Sir, I will reflect on today's exercise whenever I feel like I'm stuck.'
In the nearly 25 years since that answer it has never served as a metaphor for anything.
Until today.
A good decision is one that advances us towards where we want to be.
Three fixed holds that secure the inquiring reach for the next unknown hand hold:
- My Widget
- The decision making process
- My response to what happens next
Each anchors a reach into the unknown - exceeding our grasp.
(Or what's a Widget for?)
The Only Way to Learn.
Sergeant Mortellaro - My Drill Sergeant during Officers Training School
“I have already chose my officer.”
And what was he?
Forsooth, a great arithmetician...
That never set a squadron in the field,
Nor the division of a battle knows...
- 'Othello', William Shakespeare
'The problem is that when we're new to something or when we're approaching intermediate skill at something, it gets dangerous. Because you need to have an awareness about how much more you could learn. There's the cataract of not being great at something that makes it difficult to know what you need to learn to get better. The only way to learn that is from other people. It's very difficult on your own.'
- Merlin Mann
When you become the boss for the first time, you're dangerous.
Lots of positional power and no experience of how to use it.
You've made lots of widgets so well that you've been put in charge of other people making widgets. They're completely different skills with only the widget in common. You're an arithmetician - full of the theory. Or maybe not even that.
Sure - you've had lots of leadership role models:
Parents. Older siblings. School teachers. The drill sergeants in the movies.
That's not the worst of it. As Merlin Mann says, you may not know that you don't know. Or if you do, you can't show it. Your people will eat you alive. Your boss wants you to deliver from day one. You've got to be strong. Decisive even. That's what they do in the movies.
So you set about being Mum, Dad, older sister, home room teacher and Gunnery Sergeant Carter. You stop being yourself.
Your people will teach you what it takes to be a good boss. Ask them. Engage them in good decision making.
Yes it's risky. They may take advantage of you.
Which is why they won't.
Trust: The Best Way to Manage.
The High Court ruled last week that there is no implied term of mutual trust and confidence in Australian employment contracts.
What is trust?
Trust is the basic social glue.
It influences good decision making.
Yet just like good decision making, no-one teaches the theory and practice of Trust.
It's seen as an emotional, moral quality.
Is 'Trust' in MBA courses? Is it in Staff Induction days? Are there Trust policies?
Time to remedy our lack of knowledge about Trust.
Reinhard K. Sprenger wrote 'Trust: The Best Way to Manage.' Here are the highlights to help begin incorporating an understanding of the influence Trust has in good decision making.
It is no longer possible for trust to develop out of familiarity.
Trust increases the scope for nonconformity (the lateral thinking so highly regarded everywhere), individuality and originality. People can be who they are. Without trust, motivation doesn't last.
Many studies have attempted to establish a correlation between internal company factors and corporate results. But only one variable has been substantiated as having a significant correlation: the nature of staff members' relationships with immediate managers. If the relationship is good, productivity increases; if it is bad, it declines. Within a relationship that someone experiences as positive, the most important feature is trust.
it has often been said that trust is the basis for management. Allowing oneself to be managed means trusting someone.
Modern trust is based on people's having chosen to work together and trust each other. This trust is reflective and calculating. This trust is neither blind nor naïve. This trust is a decision.
'The best managers trust their people from the first day. On the basis of an inner conviction they trust them to do the best and to deliver good work. Only the cynical managers think staff have to trust first.'
- Carolyn Dyer, Gallup Senior Analyst
Trust is a potential solution for problems involving risk. Accordingly, trust presupposes a risk situation. Risk comes first. Then comes trust (or mistrust).
I am prepared to relinquish control of another person because I expect them to be competent, and to act with integrity and goodwill.
It is only sensible that trust is always limited.
The reason that we often undervalue trust is that we aren't aware of it until it has been broken. Then we are usually astonished, sometimes even shocked.
Either/or: this is one of the greatest obstacles on the path to recognising trust as the elixir of life in the business world. What's missing is a sensible intermediate position. But if I want to talk about trust, build trust and make a decision about trust, I have to be aware of it. Only then does it become an option I can choose.
Only conscious trust is real trust: the conviction that the other person won't betray me, although I know they could. I shall leave it to you to judge whether "hope" or" confidence" might be better terms for this. What's important to me is that the diminution of trust is a contribution for its very existence.
Everything we value as trust can be obtained only within a framework of knowledge and in conditions of relative security. Because knowledge is limited and total security isn't possible, we must complement both with trust. Knowledge and security don't necessarily amount to mistrust; they are the basis to which trust can relate. This means that knowledge is the primary idea that must be in place before we can speak about trust.
What people tend to forget is that learning can't take place if the outcome isn't monitored.
Control doesn't necessarily undermine trust. Control can actually safeguard trust. The higher the degree of trust, the more important the safeguarding function of control. It then acquires an informative, supporting and enhancing character. But if on the other hand trust is displaced beyond a certain threshold, the experience becomes one of mistrust. The higher the degree of mistrust, the more limiting control becomes, thereby diminishing trust still further.
The optimum ratio between trust and control is not constant, but will fluctuate according to the situation and the occasion.
Contracts can provide a platform on which a trusting collaboration can be built. Take an employment contract. If it regulates the essentials and confines itself to the minimum, it will never see the light of day again once an employee has started work. But without it, many would never start at all. It represents a minimum guarantee for mutually acceptable behaviour.
Trust isn't possible without control, nor control without trust. It is the proportion that is important.
In its extreme form, trust paradoxically destroys the basis for its own future. A certain measure of selective mistrust is required in order to give worth to trust and to ensure its continued existence.
Trust is like an advance: it can be cashed in later. Trust is always on trial.
Trust still needs to be justified by results now and again if it is to be continually renewed. That's what sets it apart from the rule of obedience or loyalty to the alliance that still dominates many businesses today. If your interests are upheld by the other person's actions in the expected matter your trust remains intact.
Trust brings risk with it, but so does mistrust. There is no business without risk.
When we are in a position to evaluate the relative trustworthiness of someone, we are dealing with a proportion. And it is in this proportion that we deed to make a decision on.
Trust must remain constructive; it mustn't make you blind and mustn't ever be absolute. The same goes for mistrust.
Modern trust therefore involves a decision in favour of a combination of trust and mistrust, of control and the relinquishing of control.
Trust is often weighty, moralistic, admonishing. The question 'Don't you trust me?' makes you eager to say you do. Trust is often viewed as an unalloyed substance like honey, spreading well-being when ever it flows. But this picture is skewed. Trust isn't intrinsically good.
In some cases, defensive managers misuse trust as a label. They don't pay attention, don't act, don't manage, and excuse their passivity by claiming trust in their employees. But trust can never mean retreat and passivity.
Trust is neither good nor bad. There is no need to evaluate it at all. It can be explained more or less fully as a product of a rational collaboration with no moral component.
Someone who says 'trust me' is effectively declaring trust to be a debt the other person owes them. The subtext is: 'if you don't trust me, there's something wrong with you'. In fact when people are told 'trust me' they often feel ashamed or guilty if they don't manage to trust.
A manager needs to remain aware of his role in the company and position in the hierarchy at all times – and that rules out genuineness. This applies especially critical situations that staff experience as threatening.
I want to be quite clear about the fact that my policy is to use trust to influence behaviour. This would only represent a moral problem if I were to conceal a manipulative intention.
A trusting relationship is characterised by the expectation that the dependency involved in the relationship will not be exploited by one of the parties.
It can be highly advantageous for people to confirm trust if they value the space to be themselves, manage themselves and be respected. And the benefits are great too if they coincide with the maximum benefit for the manager: if both are pursuing interests in the same direction.
If you nevertheless trust: you will consciously choose uncertainty, loss of control and the possibility of disappointment. You give the employee a task without knowing whether he will prove worthy of your trust; you don't know whether he will use his freedom of action to your detriment. So placing trust initially involves risk for you as a manager. This risky advance investment can't be justified in an absolute sense, but it is extremely reasonable, as we shall see.
Vulnerability starts trust.
Active trust is accepted vulnerability.
Trust brings commitment. It creates obligation. It binds. It unleashes a deep current from which we can barely escape. And the greater the risky advance investment, the greater the binding effect.
The important thing is that giving trust is a gift that creates obligations is precisely because it is difficult or impossible to demand.
It has now become clear that two things that appeared mutually exclusive actually belong together: trust and control. Trust controls the behaviour of another person. It is wrong to play trust and control off against each other. The opposite applies: trust is control.
If you as a manager place your fate in the hands of your staff, if you relinquish your power and ability to act arbitrarily, if you allow staff to take responsibility for things that will affect your success, then the binding effect of trust can develop. Are your staff aware that you will be damaged if they don't do the job? It isn't enough to say 'I need your contribution'; your staff must be aware that you have a problem if they don't do their job. If a member of staff is justified in feeling that their contribution hardly counts, has little effect and isn't indispensable, no trust can develop.
Trust people to have their own quality standards for themselves and their work. Get rid of time monitoring systems.
Take customer orientation seriously. Support unorthodox decisions made by the staff.
Check first, then trust.
Put yourself to the test with your staff: give them the opportunity to vote you out. This is the highest level of vulnerability possible at work. It is the ultimate level of trust. Trust becomes possible when you make yourself dependent on the agreement and performance of your staff.
You get the trust mechanism started when you yourself give trust first by allowing yourself to be vulnerable. This is the most important condition. You are vulnerable when an abuse of trust by the other person would be hugely detrimental to you.
When human beings are treated as responsible people, they behave as such. We know from research that we are strongly influenced by other people's opinion of us. The other person is, or can become, a person of integrity if we give them the opportunity to confirm trust.
If you distrust, you never have the chance to encounter a trustworthy person.
The message 'I trust you' is more effective in bringing about a desired outcome than 'trust me' is. It invests something before it expects anything; it gives first and then receives.
Trust is neither a prerequisite nor a result. It is both. It oscillates between prerequisite and confirmation. Trust runs in a circular pattern. So does mistrust.
Is sad mentality of caution: it is in hierarchies where the emphasis has shifted dramatically from responsibility for tasks to responsibility in terms of accountability that there is constant dissatisfaction with conditions in the company. Everywhere, the question 'Where were you when that happened?' creates the mixture of uncertainty and fear that turns trust into a constraint. Trust is sacrificed when people decide to take a safety measure to deal with a risk that may actually have been small.
When you withdraw trust from an employee, they don't have to balance the relationship account by contributing something in return. They no longer experience an inner pressure pushing them to restore the balance. They no longer have a bad conscience about cheating on you because you don't consider them trustworthy anyway.
Trust isn't a moral action. It doesn't necessarily consist in believing in the other person's good intentions. It can be assigned to the rational sphere. It consists of a rational policy of maximising benefit, and intelligence that calculates advantage. You can decide to trust.
Power doesn't come from above. It exists in the relationship of one individual to another in so far as the individual has freedom to act.
You are not really a member of the group until you have earned the trust of others. And trust develops when you place the objectives of the group above your own ego. The group always comes first.
What brings us together, what induces us to act considerately, is common problems.
Problems that allow us to collaborate must fulfill at least two conditions. First, they must be important problems that affect our business life directly or indirectly. Second, they must be self-evident problems; it's no good if people aren't aware of them unless they are given a briefing, or unless they have a university education.
Trust is rational against a background of common problems
Collective identity arises when management succeeds in presenting problems as collective problems.
Only those two trust themselves can trust others. People can be capable of trust only if they have relatively secure, prolonged contact with their own sense of reliability.
Being faithful to agreements is the core of trust.
What principle do managers follow? If they seek success it will be trust. If they are out to avoid failure, it will be mistrust.
Trust is inconceivable without taking a risk; it therefore requires courage. It is a bet on the future; it is located between knowing and not knowing. Under some circumstances, it entails taking risks that endanger life. But it also involves important chances.
A breach of trust occurs only if the other person fails to adhere to agreements in which expectations are balanced.
Trust is the rule, mistrust as the exception, not vice versa.
The gain from confirmed trust remains invisible and isn't even detected, whereas the loss from abused trust is visible and experienced directly.
The rules of second chance ethics are:
1. Always offer to cooperate first.
2. If your offer is returned, be prepared to trust in the long term; if not then punish immediately and mercilessly.
3. Offer the trust again after a certain period
Under no circumstances should you turn a blind eye to a breach of trust. Don't allow someone to break your implicit trust. If you don't act, you are an accomplice, as good as saying 'it's it okay to abuse trust'.
Tit for tat also applies in the event of you doing something wrong. Don't cover it up, but face up to it fairly and squarely. 'My behaviour wasn't acceptable and that matters to me. Will you give me another chance?' Scarcely anyone would deny you.
Trust isn't a matter of models and Mission statements. The acid test is the concrete behaviour of the person fixing the values in cases of conflict.
If you work with someone, you should trust them. If you don't trust them, you should do better not to work with them.
The decision to trust is then the result of rational calculation mixed with emotional processes.
Knowing Who You're Not.
'I recorded my first album, The Sound of White in Los Angeles when I was 20 (or was it 19?.) The producer, John Porter, said to me very nicely one day: "Your accent, it's...very strong when you sing, isn't it? Perhaps, ah, we could tone it down a little? Some people might find it a bit distracting."
I took great offence. Not only did I not tone down my accent, I went even harder with it. "Boom, that'll show them," I remember thinking. "How dare anyone think that me singing in my own accent is distracting? I'm not f..king American!" The accent went on to become stronger out of sheer spite. "If this is going to polarise people," I thought, "I may as well not do it in halves."
Missy Higgins was 19 and working her first job - making her debut album. She was doing what she'd wanted to do since she was 12 - singing.
John Porter, effectively her boss, had produced his first album for The Smiths eight years before she was born and had worked with Roxy Music and Bryan Ferry.
He questioned who she was - she pondered and decided to defy him. At 19. In her first job. She decided to become herself.
Not half - but fully.
The Sound of White debuted at No. 1 and sold half a million copies.
A good decision is one that advances you towards where you want to be.
Good decision making is a deliberate process of inquiry that advances you towards where you want to be. You question or you're questioned. You search for your own answers, not someone else's.
If you look around and someone is following - buying half a million of your Widgets - you're a Leader.
If not - fine. You're still on your way to where you want to be.
Preside.
From the very beginning, Obama has been a presider rather than a decider. His modus operandi is to marshal existing political forces toward a particular, prgmatic set of goals.
- Andrew Sullivan
A good Leader Creates a Space.
She presides over that Space.
She holds it.
The measure of her power is not in what she does.
It's in what others do in that space.
It takes strength for her to hold that space against the forces that batter against it. Time. Money. Efficiency. Expediency. Fear. Ego.
And the most powerful of them all - her self-doubt.
'Preside' comes from the Latin praesidere - to stand guard over.
Anyone who creates a space and protects the process of discernment and decision making within - is a Leader.
Flawless.
'All the business of war, and indeed all the business of life, is to endeavor to find out what you don't know by what you do; that's what I called 'guessing what was at the other side of the hill.''
- The Duke of Wellington
'It was a flawless operation. It was just that the hostages weren't there.'
- Chuck Hagel, US Secretary of Defence.
A good decision is one that advances you towards where you want to be.
It takes discipline and courage to seek to execute a flawless operation instead of succumbing to the seduction of decisiveness.
That's why Leaders are brave.
Sure - you might solve a problem with instinct, intervention, positional power or luck.
Meanwhile, someone is planning their operation based upon the predictability of your decisions.
About where the hostages will be.
Guns.
'...be prepared to punish immediately and mercilessly.'
- Reinhard K. Sprenger in his book 'Trust', on how to respond to a failure to acknowledge a breach of trust.
'Why does the military need the DFDA?' I asked the classroom of First Year Cadets and Midshipmen at the Australian Defence Force Academy.
I was delivering another lesson in the Defence Force Discipline Act.
No hands went up.
'Why do you need your own military laws? Why can't you just be subject to the same criminal laws as every other resident of Canberra? Of Australia?' No response.
They looked uncomfortable. Unlike 18 year olds at civilian universities, my rank demanded their attention and they had to pretend to give it.
Finally, a hand slowly rose.
'Yes?' I said, nodding towards the red-faced Army cadet.
'Sir, because we've got guns in our bedrooms, Sir?'
His classmates laughed.
'Correct.'
Sailors, soliders and airmen who are caught breaching society's laws, values or implied rules of behaviour are subjected to higher media attention and scrutiny and public shaming than the average civilian who might do the same.
Rightly so.
A democracy makes a deal with its 18 year olds with uniforms and guns.
We trust you.
We'll fall asleep in leafy suburbs next door to where you slumber beside your weapons.
We trust you not to turn those weapons on us.
We know History. We can't afford not to give you uniforms and guns.
We know History. We can't afford to wait to see whether our trust in you with guns was misplaced. That would be too late.
Instead -
We demand that you have higher levels of behaviour enforced by extra criminal laws.
We'll let you come onto our streets with your guns as long as we see you marching in controlled, neat, shiny, uniform ranks and snapping to attention when ordered to by superiors who have superiors who have superiors who defer to our elected government who we can vote out and ridicule on talk back radio and on Facebook.
If you behave in any way that hints that our trust in you might be a mistake:
Then we'll punish you immediately and mercilessly and publicly - disproportionately than if you were an unarmed teenager.
It's not your misogyny, pot smoking, petty theft, drunkenness, harassment or racist emails that we want to protect ourselves from.
It's your judgement.
And the guns in your bedroom.
Burden.
'You're asking me to quash his conviction?'
'Yes Sir.'
'Even though he pleaded guilty?'
'Yes Sir.'
'The Law is an ass, Bernard.'
Air Commodore Smith was a 'one star' general equivalent.
He'd graduated from the RAAF Academy the year I was born.
He was an Engineer. A Fighter Pilot.
He was flying Mirage fighters at twice the speed of sound at 40,000 feet over Malaysia during the Vietnam War when I was still in nappies.
He was a Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire
He was the Air Officer Commanding Western Australia.
He had a wife and grown up children.
He was my boss.
I was in my mid-twenties. Three years out of Law School. Four ranks and a thousand years junior to him in work and military and life experience.
'The Defence Force Discipline Act allows you to seek a higher legal opinion if you're not comfortable with mine, Sir,' I explained to him.
'Not necessary,' he said as he signed his acceptance of my review and recommendation to quash the conviction of the cannabis smoking airman on the basis of an error of law. 'You've explained your reasons both in your written report and verbally to me today and I accept the stupidity of the Law, not you. I'm going to bring this legal loophole to the attention of the other Base Commanders at our conference at Headquarters next week. They need to know about it.'
A month later, a file 'Command Legal Matters' was marked out to me by Wing Commander Oliver, the Air Commodore's Administrative Staff Officer. I opened it and found a copy of a letter that was marked to me 'For Information'.
It was a letter from the Air Officer Commanding Training Command, a two star general equivalent and my boss's boss. It was written to all the Air Force Base Commanders in Training Command - including my boss. It referred to the recent Commanders Conference and the jurisdiction issue I had cited to recommend quashing the conviction. It was admonishing my boss for quashing the conviction based upon my legal advice.
One line stands out in my memory: 'There is no place for High Court decisions in the administration of summary hearings under the Defence Force Discipline Act on Bases. Command Legal have confirmed this. Commanders should therefore seek higher headquarters legal advice in future before quashing convictions based on jurisdictional grounds. '
The Air Commodore never mentioned the letter nor his boss's criticisms of him at his commanders conference to me, let alone my legal superiors' contradictions. I don't even think that he intended the letter to come to me - otherwise he would have spoken to me about it rather than have me find out via a marked out file. He must not have thought it important.
Air Commodore Smith backed me. He backed me over the commanding officer whose guilty verdict he quashed. He backed me in front of his boss. He backed me before his peers. He backed me when he could have gone to my legal superiors for a second opinion. He backed me even though he disagreed with the legal outcome as a matter of common sense. He backed me when my own legal superiors did not. He backed me with the same business-as-usual manner as he would return my salutes if we passed each other or crack his lawyer jokes.
Air Commodore Smith didn't need to hear a Supreme Court Judge affirm my legal reasoning at a Legal Officers conference six months later. He continued to challenge, question, and ultimately back my advice to him for the remainder of my posting as his legal adviser.
His faith in me was a huge burden. It increased my self-doubt because I had to continue to live up to his total reliance on me and I thought I could not. It made me feel more exposed, rather than protected. It made me more careful and diligent in the legal advice that I gave to him. It made me accept other decisions that he made as the Base Commander that I did not necessarily understand or agree with because I trusted him based upon the way that I had seen him go about his decision making. It connected me to him. It made me a better legal officer, lawyer and person. His trust in my judgement and legal ability and officer qualities was hard to live up to.
Which was another gift that Air Commodore Smith gave me.
He just assumed I was up to it.
Backed.
'Decisions made by my Chief of Staff and my Office have my full backing and authority. Anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong.'
When your boss says 'I'll back you,' - and she does - that's arguably one of the greatest gifts.
And a huge burden.
Pass both on.
Say: 'I'll back you,' to your people.
Say: 'I'll back you,' to your customers.
Say: 'I'll back you,' to yourself.
Feel your burden ease.
Feel the anxiety in your chest.
Backing them isn't a sentimental leap of faith into the unknown.
When you back them. When you promise them - or at least yourself - that they act with your authority and that you will stand by their decisions regardless of the outcome and accept all the consequences - you realise you're utterly compelled to:
- Know them
- Clearly define their expectations
- Define their Widget
- Equip them with everything you have - especially information
- Affirm them
- Get out of their way
When I reflect on my good bosses.
My peers.
My parents.
I think that the message - in words and deeds - of 'I'll back you,' taught me the most about work, myself, and life.
'I'll back you,' says: 'I believe in you. Go and become that person I see and believe in.'
[Now think of the converse and understand how damaging and destructive it can be not to have the backing of a boss. It wounds our soul.]
[Now think of a boss who backed you - and write to them and thank them for the faith they showed in you.]
Laying down your life for another isn't as literal as the mournful notes of the Last Post honouring war dead have us believe.
It's putting yourself at risk to back another.
Is this the answer to how we bring Love into our workplaces?
The Greatest Love?
By backing each other?