We're All Problem-Solving, Consulting, Serving: Part 2

Image courtesy UCDC of Engineering

Here's another way to describe someone like this - an advanced consultant - or a servant. It's synonymous isn't it? When each is exemplified at its peak, they look similar. An exemplary servant, for example, would be one who is focused on helping others to truly help them, which involves a consultative approach to help them effectively solve their problems and develop further into their potential.

You'll notice that the process of the servant-leader mirrors the problem-solving flow of a consultant.

• Assess to understand the problem and its situation

• Analyze to gain clarity on the problem

• Design a solution

• Implement the solution

• Re-assess and cycle back through until the problem is solved effectively

What terminology does your position put to this basic framework? A doctor probably says examination, diagnoses, prognosis, therapy, and re-evaluation. A product developer may say market research, design, development, launch, and assessment. A mechanic could say evaluate, identify issues, explore options, resolve. Most positions have a unique way of describing this.

With your field's problem-solving terminology top of mind, who are the best at each phase? And, who are those you admire most as experts AND as all-around human beings? I would guess these individuals are strong in two ways.

One, they are strong in each of the consultative phases. Think about it - there are many great listeners who squander opportunity through inaction. Many others are highly proactive but trail-blaze in poor directions because they're too impatient to read their map. And, we all know one-hit wonders who gave their all, succeeded, turned on auto-pilot and later crashed.

Two, the individuals who came to mind strongly live the consultative framework across different time periods. Sure, they're keen on capturing what their market wants and delivering it many months later. And, they're also likely good in the long-term, having thought out their career development and delivering on their plans to provide for their family the way they need it. But, maybe more importantly, they are sages in moments. Even in abrupt conflict, we admire those who patiently seek to understand others, form responses in their mind, and then thoughtfully address the issues. 

Like great problem-solvers, when we're awake, we're always wrapped-up in the solving cycle. In, fact, it's fundamental to life, as we combat the physical laws of entropy. Every cycle phase matters, but what if we each took action improving our weakest area? We'd probably become more trusted experts and all-around, just better human beings.

We're All Problem-Solving, Consulting, Serving: Part 1

Image courtesy of MIV pre-school classroom

What's the day-to-day commonality between a lawyer, actuary, event organizer, web developer, nutritionist, and game warden? Not very much, huh? Their purposes, environments, markets, and activities look quite a bit different, but by zooming out, you can see this basic commonality: they are all meant to serve others by solving some set of problems. Even a great musician is producing an art which addresses an emotion or fills a hole. It's true of your position too.

We all are paid to problem-solve in some way and within a larger problem that many others are working to solve. For example, a surgeon helps a portion of those served within a hospital, which serves a segment of the service area for a hospital systems, which is working to change health metrics in a region to contribute to improving a nation's health.

And, it's worth noting that the surgeon is compensated highly because they solve a large problem. Likewise, you and I are compensated partially based upon how large society deems the problem we're working on. Some, like Dr. Elliott Jaques, may even say that we're predisposed to gravitate toward a certain amount of risk with greater problems.

Interestingly, it is common that experts within a field are those who are the best problem solvers. It may even be fair to say that great problem-solving is the formula for professional success. A chief technology officer likely holds their position because of a solid track record for overcoming IT issues. Likewise, in an election for mayor, city voters tend to opt for a candidate who has successfully met needs from another city government position. In each case, it's likely they've worked their way forward by delivering well, then being referred, then delivering again, and so on.

A characteristic of the best problem-solvers is their ability to empathize by putting themselves in others shoes. Among other things, this allows them to solve issues at the root, versus providing superficial cover-ups.

Two Revelations on Leadership: Part 2

Image: Archimedes Lever

Let's turn our attention to the "others" side of leadership. Having spent much of my life in leadership positions on various teams, one of my greatest questions has been "How can I lead in a way that makes the greatest possible impact for the greater whole?" It's been a perpetual question on my mind which waxes and wanes in strength from seasons of intense challenge to seasons of re-calibration. I'm guessing you can probably relate. My revelation came a few years ago from a mentor who is the chairman of an energy company. He'd become very familiar with my study of top leadership models. One day after a full day of work, he saw me scribbling in my notebook. Knowing me, he knew I was mind-mapping from the things I'd seen that day and continuing my work to crack the leadership code. He stopped and said similar to: "Reid, it's very easy, if you want to lead, serve. Great leaders who others will actually follow are those who serve." His comment was all too familiar at the time, especially after studying across the spectrum of servant leadership models from Robert Greenleaf to Tom Osborne to Lao Tzu.

I'd heard it all before, but that day I heard it from one of the best leaders I'd seen. I saw the way he sacrificed to provide for his employees, the way he courageously pursued ventures that would help communities in need, and the way he served his family and guests. It was different because I experienced a community who chose to follow him and I witnessed the association between giving and development. Since then, I've realized the extent to which this principle is embedded into society. Look around and you're likely to see that those with the most power are typically either of the controlling forceful type with structures built on fear or of the giving serving type with structures built on service. Servant-leadership is a strand of social DNA. 

Archimedes is known for saying "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world." As you grow, remember the basics of leadership: you and others.  Your influence hinges on your level of self-management, and others choosing to follow you depends on if you serve them. These are the Archimedes Levers of Leadership.

Two Revelations on Leadership: Part 1

Image courtesy Tambako The Jaguar

How do you define leadership? This is a question a mentor asked me several years ago. Coming from a background heavy in athletics, my paradigm was that of a student athlete, and my answer resembled what you might think of as a field marshal. Since then, I've observed that this is a question answered constantly in management work and definitions vary from group to group. It's important for each group to find a common definition so they start in the same place with running their organization. Here's a sampling of definitions I've heard: "to have followers", "to influence", "to move others to action", "the capacity to lead", "to be a moral authority", and "to move a group in the same direction".

There are many ways to look at it. Most overlap and most are good. When it comes to improving our own leadership of others, we can always be certain of two parts: the us (me) part and the them (others) part. In scouring theories and examining them in action, I've had a revelation on each. 

The first revelation came from a brilliant man who's the chief executive of a fast-growing technology company. His definition of leadership is "self-management". By reaction, it seems like a strange definition, but with explanation it is profound. The definition has  important premises. First, it assumes that everyone is a leader, which is true. Every person has a unique set of tools and purposes within a greater context. Second, it assumes that every person has yet to fully grow into their potential.

You've probably seen some of Michelangelo's famous sculptures like Moses, Pieta, or David. You may not have known that he believed his vision for each piece came from God, and that his job was not to create the art but to remove the marble getting in the way. In the same way, the leadership definition of "self-management" presupposes that much is in the way for one to positively influence at their full potential. From my experience, it's true. I am typically my own greatest impediment, and it's my job to better control my mind, attention, emotion, body, schedule, creativity, energy, etc. As I do, I sense an increase in my leadership ability. Not only do my "teams" select better targets, but we're more effective at hitting them. Not surprisingly, as I am a better self-manager, I notice that others are too. And, when I think back on my days in sports, I can remember the contagion of self-discipline in the weight room. It's interesting, major improvements tend to happen around leaders who we think are closer to self-mastery. It starts with self-management.

Four Worldview Cornerstones and Information Keys: Part 2

Image courtesy Kevin Dooley

The third cornerstone to a worldview is other people. It's simple, we, ourselves, share the responsibility to steward what we have with all of the others inhabiting the earth. This sharing process is the time-transcendent challenge of humanity. Models of corporate sharing cannot be glanced over - some of the world's greatest thinkers have worked on (and been stumped by) this very subject, from Karl Marx to Adam Smith. By studying social psychology, economics, history, and anthropology, among others, we gain a better understanding of human behavior. They give us perspective which helps us to make better decisions. I keep an eye out for pockets of people who have strong understanding of society and the power to make improvements.

My key here is businesses. Few other groupings of people can match in their knowledge of markets with how people are behaving on massive scales and what they want. Business's incentives make it such that they attract bright minds, succeed only if markets validate what they're doing, and their means give them the flexibility to shift as their markets think differently. I've found that this is the 80/20 domain (with government and political policy right behind) to study as a window to understand and impact the social networking of humanity.

The final worldview cornerstone is the space-time continuum we know as the context for our lives, especially our home planet, earth. This is the amalgamation of most everything else that provides the context for which we live our lives, like geographical regions, environmental components, climates, animals, plants, human creations, and influencing factors. Our beliefs for what components exist in our context and the relationships between them, and us with them also sets the stage for the narratives we write with our being. You can imagine how someone would live differently if they believed they lived on the edge of a flat earth, or if someone thought that a heating earth was a purely natural ebb and flow of the planet, or if someone didn't believe in the existence of supernatural forces. Our views about our context tell us what we should or shouldn't put our effort into.

So, what's the key, here? I've found that it is economics. So much of the big picture of our existence is determined by how we engage with a context of limited resources, and that is by common definition, economics (the study of limited resources). By studying economics, we're bound to look at nearly every factor of our context, the role it plays on earth, and the cost-benefits for the greater whole if it remains as it is or if it changes. It's also a powerful perspective into our relationship with the context and what it should be. Want to understand why people live in your city in the first place? Economics might show. For my city, the land was a location along a river that sped up the transportation of people and goods, and the river provided the electricity needed for factories. If you want to understand the context in which you live, economics is a great place to start.

If you devote your attention to these four keys, you'll have a strong grasp of your world and a greater chance to make an impact. My encouragement is to clarify you perspective in each of the four cornerstones. Write out your views and go see if they hold water. Here are the two questions to ask yourself: 1) Is this view intellectually credible? 2) Is this view existentially satisfying? Put them to the test, clarify, and adjust your behavior to live a better life.

Four Worldview Cornerstones and Information Keys: Part 1

Image Courtesy of Michael Cote

Given the infinite quantities of information vying for our attention, I've had a personal dilemma with where to focus. So, where is best to zone in? Of course, the answer to this question hinges on the person and how they're uniquely equipped to make an impact. Personally, I have an interest at the macro social level, however, I've found four crucial areas to clarify and give ongoing attention. Apply the 80/20 rule here.  I'd argue that everyone, regardless of their main focus, should seek clarity in these areas and use them as keys to understanding the greater whole. In addition, I believe that views on these four areas comprise the quad-cornerstones to every human beings worldview, which serves as the guidance (sometimes implicitly) to their lives. These four areas very simply are:

1. God (or a higher power)

2. Self (or the individual)

3. Others (or humanity)

4. World (or life's contextual landscape)

My observation is that one's views of God determines the general pathway of their life. Ask someone "why" a few times about the ways they live and the answers always dig to this final layer. Here are a few common topics - the existence of God, the nature of God, God's role in the world today, etc.

My key on this subject is leadership. If you want to understand the nature of God, look at the most effective positive influencers of history. If you want to understand how to lead better, study the nature of God. And, if you want to better understand an individuals perspective of God/non-God, look not at their words but at their behaviors. There's no doubt, we are all leaders, influencing each other and driving agendas of some sort. Our approach to leadership hinges on our beliefs. Do we believe in God? If not, what does the coding of the world reveal about how to impact others? If we believe in a God, what's the nature of this being? Being the original leader, what is this God's motivation for creating us, and how does that shape our approach?  If we want to be better leaders, it's crucial that we clarify here.

The second worldview cornerstone is the self. Obvious as it may seem, it's worth a rudimentary reminder that the human organism is the pinnacle of earth's components, at least from our perspectives, since we are living as humans. With that comes great responsibility for stewardship which depends upon whom? All of us, but we each live as... well.. us. So, it starts with oneself. The way we view our role motivates (or even demotivates) the paths we choose. 

My key to the self is neuroscience, especially with a spin toward behavioral psychology. If you want to understand the individual, it's important to start with strong evidence, and a key to that is the insights of neuro-psychology. See, traditional psychology has been criticized by harder sciences for leaning too heavily on qualitative research. Neuroscience bridges this gap by mapping brain activity with observed behaviors. As I kid, I imagined a future technology that would map a brain to give a sort of omniscient look at the moment-by-moment decisions a person had made over the course of a lifetime all at once. We're not quite there, but we're getting close. If you want strong insights on everything from uniqueness's, behaviors, and motivations to our optimal environments, social networking, and emotional responses, check out this field.

Specialization: Organizing with Roles

Image courtesy of UFV

Given the premise discussed in the previous posting on levels of organization, it seems worth noting one major trend across all levels - different players with different roles. Given that all organisms are made up of organs, this, in and of itself, portends roles, right? In the vast majority of cases, it does. It seems obvious, but hang with for a moment, because getting this premise is important and it has implications for everything from your day-to-day life with family to economic systems. 

Our bodies are healthy when each organ is doing its respective job well. Our teams succeed when we have the right people in the right roles. And, economically, we are most healthy when companies, states, and nations do what they do best. In this sense, we call it specialization. Specialization is a powerful method which leverages groups strengths to scale their expertise and trade with others, with the hope of saving resources overall, including time and energy. Without specialization, economically, our lifestyle would continue looking like that of a nomad or caveman. 

For progress, roles must be emphasized, and leaders need to devote special attention to this. From a leadership standpoint, what's the biggest difference between roles within a human body and roles within a team of people? The answer is that one's typically far, far, far more flawed. The difference is that one is human-designed and the other isn't. Whereas the human body's organs are designed seemingly flawlessly with each organ in an ideal place with its own ideal role, teams are designed by us. Much is developed somewhat haphazardly, but even with great thought, we're bound to have errors. The reality is that we:

1. Struggle to create strong systems and roles.
2. Don't always select role-fillers that fit well.
3. Are imperfect at putting people in the most suitable positions.
4. Are challenged to adjust roles as people grow and times change.

These are not easy tasks. Indeed not. They are among the most complex and difficult responsibilities a person experiences. And, it only gets more daunting the more complex the systems get. Economists and politicians, among others, face remarkable dilemmas. Like in the case of the Chinese economy. Should the nation continue investing in being the world's manufacturer, or should they grow further into a more service-based economy? If the latter, how can they continue taking advantage of the manufacturing strengths of the Guangzhou area? Should they maintain the current level of state control on the economy or should they loosen their grip and allow local areas to specialize more as they choose? And, so on.

Let's bring it to the team level. How fitting is the design of your team for its purpose? Is each position important and are there any missing? Do all people fit well together, culturally?  Culture fits are like blood types within a body - some types blend well and others are rejected. Jim Collins phrases it something like this: Get the right people on the bus, and then you can get each person in the right seat. So, then the next question is are the people on your team in the right seats? If you see gaps, you might consider getting a start at improvement with one of these personality/preferences assessments - StrengthsFinder, Myers-Briggs, Kolbe, and DISC.

How about you? Does your mission match with the organization you work within? Are you in the right seat? You may want to ponder on these questions within your family context as well.

The Organization of Organizations of Organizations

Image courtesy of Ron Cogswell

Have you noticed the extent to which the world is an organization of organizations? Systems within systems within systems. Perhaps you've watched one of those jaw-dropping videos that shows the scale of the universe, starting more micro than protons and zooming out to more macro than galaxies  If so, you can't help but notice the systematic design of the cosmos. 

A cell biologist peers through a microscope at a plant cell and observes the organization of the cell by chloroplast, vacuole, mitochondria, cytoplasm, nucleus, etc. At a larger level, an astronomer uses a telescope to make observations about groupings and clusters of galaxies.

In fact, every single job fits into solving problems at some level/s of organization, right? Let's look at just one sample from a few different levels:

• Sub-atomic particles and up - physicists
• Cells - biologists
• Organs - doctors
• Computers - programmers
• People - psychiatrists
• Groups - teachers
• Buildings - architects
• Companies - management
• Cities - civil engineers
• Habitats - ecologists
• Regions - meteorologists
• Nations - economists
• International - diplomats
• Planets - planetary scientists
• Cosmos - philosophers

If you look around professions represented within your community, the odds are that most are in the social segment. Teachers, firefighters, nurses, accountants, insurance brokers, salesman, etc. That's not to say that the rest aren't still for the benefit of people - they are - but most work is more directly people-focused. I think there are a few key questions that come next:

1. At what levels do I best make a difference?
2. Who are the leading solvers here? What have they found? How do they solve differently?
3. What are the greatest challenges at this level?
4. How can those challenges be overcome?
5. What would next-level innovation look like at this level that would most help others?
6. How can information and successes from other levels of organization inform and improve the level I focus on?

Personally, I've long been fascinated by the work of doctors, especially those who are higher-level specialists like neurosurgeons. Thinking it might be a path for me, I shadowed doctors, met with others in the medical field, and even began my undergrad as a biology major. After a few mind-numbing semesters, and stubbornly showing myself the feasibility of such a pursuit, I made a switch. The next three years were radically different. Political science, economics, psychology, and philosophy lit up my brain like a Christmas tree. I found something closer to my niche, and as time has carried on, I've found the neurosurgeon-types of my field. 

See, my infatuation with doctors wasn't about the content matter, although the human body is fascinating. My infatuation was with their high-level expertise with being able to identify a problem within a highly complex system and solve it for the sake of the greater whole. Within my community, as a kid, doctors were perhaps the most prestigious and recognized individuals with this trait. Now, I continue to learn with hopes to be a doctor, of sorts, mainly for macro and mundo organizations of people. To identify key executive, organizational, and national challenges and build solutions to overcome them.

My point is two-fold. One, what organization level's content is most fascinating to you, versus not fascinating (not just mind-numbing)? Thank goodness there are experts in every field. And, two, what characteristics do you admire from other fields, and how do they apply to yours? 

The world is a system within a larger system and made out of systems and so forth. Across all of these, there are patterns to recognize. They are keys for impact. And, if you build an expertise within one level, you'll likely be more able to make a greater impact in every other level you find yourself connected with.

Want to See? Use the Green Lens

Image courtesy of Guian Bolisay

For years, I fought to understand the world around me at a deeper level. I remember traveling from Africa to the Middle East and then to Europe in 2008 and 2009. My mind exploded with observations, but I was continually frustrated with how to connect the dots. This was problematic for two reasons. One, it made it difficult to find the anchoring points that answered some of my "why" questions. Like seeing a spider web but not seeing where it connected to something bigger than itself to hold it up. And, two, it was difficult to remember and recall the information later on when it could have been valuable. It was like there was a hidden framework that was partially holding many of the things I was seeing. For example:

• Why did the Romani seem isolated in Budapest?
• How can Nairobi police officers be so plump in a society of such skinny people?
• What was underneath Hitler's bolstering of an Aryan race?
• What caused Cyprus to remain a divided island?
• Why do business people like Luxembourg so much?
• How could there be such a drastic difference in scenery after walking 150 feet from Jerusalem into Palestine?

There's a fabric of explanations for each of these questions, no doubt, but there are certainly some keys. A few year's later, I breached the understanding barrier while traveling with a sharp-minded consultant. His observations were so frequent, concise, and explanatory. I wondered how he did it - he seemed super-human. I finally realized his uniqueness. His background of business had shaded his lens green. And, I don't mean greedily looking for ways to make money. Rather, simply viewing and seeing this way. This mental model caused almost everything to make more sense. 

In short order, let's look back at the questions above with some explanatory inlets that come from a green lens. From first to last: Romani aren't well integrated into the local economy, Nairobi police officers are known to eat more because they can (corrupt money), limited resources-based fear, tourist money and influence from Turkey and Greece, tax haven, and struggling economy of Palestine. Of course, these only small windows into much more complex reasons, but the point is that they are a window. Inlets to see.

Here's one more example from Siem Reap, Cambodia. If you've ever flown there, you may remember the unending row of hotels that greet you as you enter from the airport. In 2012, I stayed in one. It was beautiful, but nearly empty. I bet the staff outnumbered guests by 5 to 1. And, from what I remember, our hotel seemed much busier than the majority along the strip. We wondered why. Looking back, I think we made a partially correct assumption - it was an early stage of investment in anticipation of an increase in future tourists. But, in addition this, I recently made a french friend who spent a year working with a nonprofit in the former french colony. His work with the nonprofit gave him insight on the hotels which shed more light on the situation I observed. He shared that many were built and operated by Chinese statesman with one main purpose in mind: money laundering.

Is there something you're seeing that stumps you? Try switching to the green lens. You might see your answer, and if not, you're at least likely to see a signal with where to dig next. For starters, you might begin by checking out the Freakonomics podcast. Look for:

• How money is diffusing
• How emotions might be attached to a gain or lack of resources
• Economic oddities
• Who has ownership or power and what are they deciding
• Points of ambiguity, or dissonance with reality, from those in power
• Correlations between ethnicity and lifestyle
• Historical wealth patterns

Vertex Velocity Explained

Image courtesy of Erick Starck

Vertex velocity is simple: Most parts of a system have a purpose, and when they function in that way, it's good for itself and the greater whole. Vertex velocity is that attainment. Let's take a little bit closer look, for the sake of making some bedrock concepts explicit.

Why velocity? First remember that velocity is speed + direction. Every component (of a system) is heading, working, pursuing, pushing, moving in a certain direction. The easy example is the social role of a person, like you. You're headed in a certain direction overall with a certain narrative arc to your life. You have a direction you're heading within your family, your career impact, within your company, your community, your marriage, etc. There are so many ways we could look at this. The key question is.... What role should you play, at any given time or within a time-frame, within a system to optimize it's output? And, how can you optimize your role? Optimization would be the best direction. Anything other than that would therefore be sub-optimal and to some varying degree off-the-mark direction from target. A sub-optimal direction, but a direction, nonetheless. 

The other side of velocity is the speed. You're traveling in each direction at some rate, whether a slow ongoing drift of apathy and disengagement with your work team or a high-speed chase in the optimal direction toward a specific goal-destination in your personal life. The point here is that complete stagnancy is highly unlikely, by the nature of life (and even definition). You, me, we, humans are moving at some rate, in some direction, at all times on infinite levels.

The key, then, is to be thoughtful in one's selections for most attention, one's direction, and one's rate of movement in that direction. Put simply, we should distill down to the things we want to focus most of our efforts toward, based upon what we value most, and we should then be as concise as possible with our intentions and efforts associated. 

On a given situation, when direction and speed are aligned for optimal performance of the component and greater system, this level of pinnacle performance can be called vertex velocity. 

Some key questions to ask:

• What's the role of the organ (so-to-speak) within the greater organism?
• What's the aim of the organism?
• When both are functioning at optimal level, what does that look like?
• How could a change be made to shift in that direction?
• Is there anything imperative for long-term health of the organism that is being compromised based on the current strategy that should be re-aligned?