Lazy Leaders
Hoosier Academies Focused Leader Academy Graphic by Mike Fleisch
I have seen this so many times in many organizations and in my own industry as a school leader. As a person who has come in to help school teams turn schools around, I have heard so many teacher leaders say, “we were always told this idea does not fit the model.” Then when I ask the question of who said that, we find that no one did except the lazy leader who did not want to go to the trouble of making the change or explaining (selling) the change throughout the organization.
Lazy leadership really goes beyond the example of the widget itself. Probably the worst effect of lazy leaders and lazy leadership is on the organization’s culture. Imagine a culture where you are always told, “no, we can’t do this or change that because…” At some point you would just decide that your knowledge was irrelevant. We know that this would then translate to the most important component of employee satisfaction – engagement. Research tells us that the happiest employees and the ones that stay with organizations the longest are the ones that truly believe they are valued and making a difference. These same employees have been empowered and have a clearly defined role in carrying out the vision and mission of the organization. Research tells us that this level of enagagement is much more important than even salaries.
Lazy leaders may just be one of the biggest crushers of culture there is. So, how do we keep ourselves from falling into the lazy leadership trap? You are caught in the quick sand of lazy leadership if you catch yourself telling one of your team members that your superior will never agree to a change suggested by someone on your team without trying to lobby for the change. Furthermore, let’s do a Jeff Foxworthy parody.
“You might be a lazy leader if…
- You move on with a decision without finding out the real answers.
- You don’t delegate because you don’t want to have to help others hone and develop their skills.
- You delegate by “dumping and running.” What I call “relegating.” You have to help people know the vision, understand a win, and stay close enough in case they need you again. New leaders are developed, loyalty is gained, and teams are made more effective through delegation.
- You give up after the first try. No one likes to fail. Sometimes it’s easier to scrap a dream and start over rather than fight through the messiness and even embarrassment of picking up the pieces of a broken dream, but if the dream was valid the first time, it probably has some validity today.
- You don’t invest in the young and up-and-coming leaders. There’s the whole generational gap — differences in values, communication styles, expectations, etc. It would be easier to surround ourselves with all like-minded people, but who wins with that approach — especially long-term?
- You settle for mediocre performance. It’s more difficult to push for excellence. Average results come with average efforts. It’s the hard work and the final efforts that produce the best results.
- You don’t explain “why. “Just do what I say” leadership saves a lot of the leader’s time. If you don’t explain what’s in your head — just tell people what to do — You maybe get to do more of what you want to do. The problem is, however, you will have a bunch of pawns on the team and one disrespected, ineffective and unprotected king (lazy leader). (And, being “king” is not a good leadership style by the way.) Continually casting the vision and connecting the dots is often the harder work, but necessary for the best results in leadership.
- You avoid any kind of discourse. If there was only answer, solution, or innovation who needs a leader?
So, let’s get out there and excercise our leadership muscles and not be lazy!
Significance: Impacting Outside Yourself
“In the course of life, there are the great majority of successful people who have to change their direction at about age sixty. There is a very small minority of purpose-driven people who have to concentrate and not change and I can’t tell you which you are going to be. The decision is going to come up. Decision is perhaps the wrong word – as you grow older, are you focusing more on doing the things that give you achievement and satisfaction and growth or more on the things that have an impact outside of yourself? Those are decisions one has to make. And nobody can help you make them. But the one thing to avoid is splintering yourself, trying to do everything.” ~ Peter Drucker – Rick Warren Dialogue, May 27, 2004
This week’s entry in A Year With Peter Drucker really resonated with me and is something that actually presents a bit of a thought challenge for me. I have always been one who takes my own professional growth very seriously and have owned that. But, at the same time I really have never worried about or tried to position myself for what is next. At least not any more than to the extent of living by what I have always preached: “We must be ready for what we don’t know we need to be ready for.” Drucker used 60 years old as the benchmark where the decisions of a successful person needs to be made. At age 52 I still have some time, but I really do want to make sure I am making a significant impact outside of myself. Drucker believed a person could continue to do what he knows how to do extremely well or attempt to make another significant and innovative contribution to society (Maciariello, 2014). The prospect of making some new and innovative contribution to society is very attractive to me.
People who use and manage the second half of their life for impacting others are seen to be the minority. I want to be a part of this minority and would encourage you to be too. We need to be the people who see the long work expectancy we now enjoy as an opportunity both for ourselves and for society. We need to be the leaders and the models. Leaders must systematically work on making the future. The purpose of the work on making the future is not to decide what should be done tomorrow, but what should be done today to have tomorrow. Drucker also posited that leaders needed to anticipate the future that has already happened and make the future that has already happened (Maciariello, 2014). 
The importance of this was really driven home to me yesterday when we had the first session of our newly developed Focused Leader Academy. I was so inspired as I spent the day with 15 of our best and brightest teacher leaders. The passion that was displayed and the desire to learn and affect the future of our school was exciting. 
When I reflect on all the learning that went on yesterday it is exciting to think we are building our future leaders and anticipating the future that has already happened and positioning our leaders to be ready for it. We learned about a focused leader and a disciplined leader. Additionally, we discussed being focused on ourselves, our team, and our organization. The Focused Leader Academy is so exciting to me because it truly gives me a chance serve our future leaders and make an impact outside of myself. It was awesome to hear their ideas for Focused Leader Projects and I have spent a great deal of time today thinking about resources and ways I can help them to carry out the projects they have chosen. It has been exciting to put this program together and I am so thrilled to be in a position of being a servant leader to the individuals who are taking this leadership journey and will be the leaders of our school.
As I reflect on the lessons of Drucker this week I aspire to impose on the as yet unborn future, new ideas to give direction and shape to what is yet to come. I also want to be a true servant leader and help model for and mold those who will be leading those new ideas in our future. I will close with one of my favorite Peter Drucker quotes:
“The best way to predict the future is to create it.” ~ Peter Drucker
Reference
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Social Ecology: Creating Voracious Learners
“The starting point for management can no longer be its own product or service, and not even its own market and its known end-users for its products and services. The starting point has to be what customers consider value. The starting point has to be the assumption – an assumption amply proven by all our experience.” ~ Peter Drucker
Peter Drucker fancied himself a social ecologist. This was a person who attempts to spot major future trends in society that are discernible but not widely understood (Maciariello, 2014). I would posit that these persons are also pioneers, but that pioneers many times don’t do the social ecologist part. Drucker had a methodology the social ecologist should follow for the creation of emerging institutions that included four parts:
- Understanding their function
- Understanding the disruptions they create for existing institutions
- Thinking through how they could be made to function effectively
- Thinking how the new institution will have a constructive impact on society
As a pioneer who tries to practice artful leadership this really hit home for me. We need to make sure that in education we take the time as begin new, innovative, and disruptive innovations to really think through and strategically think about Drucker’s methodology. We must also diffuse innovation throughout the entire education system to those affected by emerging trends and help them to capitalize on those trends. We must become a “teaching education system,” one devoted to the diffusion of innovation.
This week’s lesson in A Year With Peter Drucker prompted me to put Everett Roger’s seminal book, Diffusion of Innovations (2003) on my book reading list. Roger’s book is the standard reference on how innovations spread throughout a social system. I cannot wait to read this book! In order for our innovations which will create disequilibrium to become viable and do all the good possible we must become “voracious learners” (Jim Mellado in Maciariello, 2014, p. 301). This is key to spreading new ideas and innovations to the majority that need them the most.
“The adoption of an innovation usually follows a normal, bell-shaped curve when plotted over time on a frequency basis.” ~ Everett Rogers in Diffusion of Innovations, p. 272
We must consider abandoning unjustifiable products and activities; set goals to improve productivity, manage growth, and developing our people. This will create resources to explore and undertake new innovations. We must not forget, however, to employ Drucker’s methodology as social ecologists and become voracious learners.
Maciariello (2014) had three great practicum prompts for this: “What are the risks of being an early adopter of innovations?” What are the risks of being a laggard?” “Where is the optimal place for you and your organization to be on the innovation diffusion curve?” Make plans to get there. 
Reference
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Everett, Roger, M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Edition). New York, NY: Free Press.
Look For Strengths, Not The Abscence of Weaknesses!
If you had to choose a better U.S. President between James Buchanan, our 15th President, or Abraham Lincoln, or 16th President, which would you choose. If you are like most historians and political scientists you chose Lincoln. He is considered by most to be one of our best Presidents ever; if not the best in history. This is interesting considering the background of the two individuals. Buchanan had significant, relevant national and international experience and failed; Lincoln had very little national and international experience and succeeded. This is what Maciariello (2014) points out as one of the most challenging aspects of succession planning: “What no one could have known is just how much this man could grow in character and competence as he tried to solve one problem after another in extraordinary times that lasted from his first day in office until his death.” (Maciariello, 2014, p. 242)
Succession is one of the key responsibilities of leadership. The succession decisions should focus on the maintenance of the spirit that keeps the institution alive. Solutions have to fit the specific organization and maintain its spirit of performance. The goal should be to maintain or restore the spirit of the organization while using the leader’s unique strengths to change effective practices and meet pressing challenges (Maciariello, 2014). We must also remember what Peter Drucker taught us about not avoiding weaknesses: “Strong people always have strong weaknesses too.” (Maciariello, 2014, pp. 247-248)
“Whoever tries to pick a man or staff an organization to avoid weakness will end up at best with mediocrity.” ~ Peter Drucker
Abraham Lincoln modeled this for us as well in choosing Ulysses S. Grant as his commander in chief. Grant had many flaws, but was just the right person to carry out Lincoln’s plan for winning the Civil War. Grant did carry out the plan and the war was ended. As the example of Ulysses S. Grant illustrates, individuals with weaknesses often have extraordinary strengths on which distinguished careers can be built. We need to strive to be more like Lincoln and ponder the challenges facing our organizations and then look for the right individuals with the strengths to meet the demands. 
“The proof of the sincerity and seriousness of management is uncompromising emphasis on integrity of character. This, above all, has to be symbolized in management’s ‘people’ decisions. For it is character which leadership is exercised; it is character that sets the example and is imitated. Character is not something one can fool people about. The people with whom a person works, and especially subordinates, know in a few weeks whether he or she has integrity or not. They may forgive a person a great deal: incompetence, ignorance, insecurity, or bad manners. But they will not forgive lack of integrity in that person. Nor will they forgive higher management for choosing him.” ~ Peter Drucker
Reference
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
What America Needs
“For the individual there is no society unless he has social status and function. Society is only meaningful if its purpose, its aims, its ideas and its ideals make sense in terms of the individual’s purposes, aims, ideas and ideals. There must be a definite functional relationship between individual life and group life.” ~ Peter Drucker
This week’s lesson from Drucker was very deep and was grounded in the working philosophy of the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Drucker believed this meant freedom, equal opportunity, and the right to be treated with dignity according to the Declaration (Maciariello, 2014). The goal would be for us to have a society of functioning organizations in which individuals find meaningful existence and purpose while also being contributing citizen.
In order for organizations to create an environment that meets these criteria, the leaders of the organization must become servants of the people they lead. Service provides the basis for the legitimacy of power and authority (Maciariello, 2014). Legitimate authority in leadership requires taking responsibility for the stewardship of the human, financial, and physical resources of an organization and performing the duties that advance the organization’s mission.
“If the individual is not given social status and function, there can be no society but only a mass of social atoms flying through space without aim or purpose.” ~ Peter Drucker
Does your organization provide dignity, freedom, and equal opportunity to each of its members, thus promoting American ideals?
What do we need to do to be more servant-like in our leadership?
Reference
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Civilized Disdain Vs. Political Correctness
“The difference between civilized disdain and political correctness is that the former allows one to feel disdain for a person’s or group’s views or beliefs while maintaining respect for the human beings that hold them.” ~ Carlo Strenger
Happy Fourth of July to you all! By 5:00 a.m. this morning my son and I will be on Lake Michigan fishing on the DreamWeaver III; a 35 foot Viking. We are in the Scottville/Ludington, Michigan area visiting our good friend Kevin Eikenberry and his family for their annual Fourth of July party. As I reflect on this important day in our nation’s history, our forefathers did not set us up for success by practicing political correctness. They were successful by having very heated ideological debate, reaching consensus, and then implementing. Indiana House Speaker, Brian Bosma reminded me of this when I asked him what success on the State Board of Education would look like. He said, “It’s all about working together to find consensus and then carrying out implementation.”
I have been reading the great book by Carlo Strenger, The Fear of Insignificance: Searching for Meaning in the Twenty-First Century. Strenger argued the ideology of political correctness failed because it was a “profoundly inauthentic prescription: it is humanly impossible to genuinely respect beliefs no matter how irrational, immoral, or absurd (Strenger, 2011).” The resulting culture was emotionally frozen and often did not lead to fruitful discussion between worldviews in general, and between secularism and religion in particular. The ideology of political correctness stated that the only civilized way of coexistence was to respect other peoples’ beliefs, just because they are held by someone. The hope behind this ideology was that if we would just be nice and respectful to each other, we would somehow be able to coexist in the same polity.
The resulting culture of us all wanting to be “politically correct” led to us being emotionally frozen and often did not lead to fruitful discussion between worldviews in general, and between secularism and religion in particular. Strenger advocated for “civilized disdain, an alternative to political correctness that is more authentic and more attuned to what we really feel toward worldviews that we do not approve of on moral or intellectual grounds. (Strenger, 2011).” The difference between civilized disdain and political correctness is that the former allows one to feel disdain for a person’s or group’s views or beliefs while maintaining respect for the human beings that hold them. I am so glad I read Strenger’s book. Interestingly, I do not have all of the same beliefs, but I do believe we could consensus build and problem- solve together. Also, I do appreciate his look at the world and our interactions as a global society, or homo globalis, as he calls it.
“Civilized disdain has turned out to be surprisingly productive in creating human bonds of lasting value. The mental discipline required for civilized disdain may be crucial for the type of world citizenship that will allow fruitful cooperation across ideological divides.” ~ Carlo Strenger
As I was studying this I was thinking about the signers of the Declaration of Independence and those who ultimately became the framers and founders of this great country, I love and call home. Shortly after the American revolution our founding fathers completed the Articles of Confederation. They then realized that the documents were inadequate to the task of unifying a diverse group of newly independent colonies. A debate thus ensued, between the Federalist side, led by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and the AntiFederalists, led by Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, over exactly how much power and authority to give Congress and the other central branches of the new government. Hamilton argued that a strong central government would be essential to the nation’s survival and prosperity, while his opponents insisted that most of the nation’s power should rest within the state and local governments. By 1787, a sort of compromise was worked out that resulted in our Constitution and its first set of amendments, the Bill of Rights. I have said this before and will say it again: I am glad there was the disagreement and debate over state’s rights. I firmly believe that had there not been the federalist and antifederalist debate, there would not have been the quality final product – our Constituion and Bill of Rights.
So, on this day of celebration of the United States Declaration of Independence, let us consider civilized disdain, where we allow each other to feel disdain for a person’s or group’s views or beliefs while maintaining respect for the human beings that hold them. Then, we need to take those difference and through compromise and consensus-building form them into a “best” solution. Finally, and most importantly, we must then implement.
Happy Fourth of July and God Bless America.
Reference
Strenger, C. (2011). The fear of insignificance: Searching for meaning in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, LLC.
Information Not Power
Just a few days away from the Fourth of July and hit the half way point of A Year With Peter Drucker (2014) by Joseph A. Maciariello. It is fitting that the week 26 lesson from Peter Drucker had to do with centralization, confederation, and decentralization. The British set up the colonies as a centralized or unified government where the autonomy and authority rested mainly at the top with the king or king appointed governors. Then in 1774 the colonies established the Continental Congress (Maciariello, 2014). This same Continental Congress endorsed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. During the period of time from the Declaration through the end of the Revolutionary War our government was in the form of a confederation. In other words, maximum autonomy was granted to the colonies.
Then in 1787 when the Constitutional Convention met a federal system of government was formed with an executive, a congress, and a judiciary. This was put into play with the ratifying of the Constitution of the United States in 1789. All powers not specifically given to the federal government were given to the states with the passing of the Tenth Amendment. The system of government established by the U.S. Constitution is often designated as federal decentralization (Maciariello, 2014). 
So, what can we learn from this? Drucker believed that a global society where the trend was moving toward knowledge-based organizations would see organizations and governments being held together by information, not power. Drucker believed that top leadership would have to take charge of two key resources: key people and money. Interestingly, this is consistent with another book I am reviewing right now as part of a book launch with Becky Robinson and Weaving Influence. The book is The Disciplined Leader: Keeping the Focus on What Really Matters by John Manning. In the book, which is set up in 52 lessons, he posits that what all great disciplined leaders do is focus on what really matters. What the research showed is the focus must be on people. Great leaders understand that people are the most vital asset in a successful organization. As Manning states: “The Disciplined Leader knows how to Focus on the Vital Few and ignore or delegate The Trivial Many (Manning, 2015, p. 5).” Think about it, the people is where the information is.
Drucker pointed to Toyota as an example of what many would call operating under decentralization, where the individuals units have rules, but operated independently. Drucker argued this is really a confederation. In a confederation the independent units operate independently, but carry out the overall spirit of the organization as a whole. A unit of confederation is independent, but it operates under loose direction of the parent organization (Maciariello, 2014). The organization that operates with people and information as its most important parts, a confederation, is held together by values, strategy, and information.
If your organization is held together by power and not information, your ability for continuous improvement may be hindered.
References
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Manning J. (2015). The disciplined leader: Keeping the focus on what really matters. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
From Delegation to Leadership
“[Henry] Ford’s failure [1927-1944] was not the result of personality or temperament. It was first and foremost the result of his refusal to accept managers and management as necessary, as a necessity based on task and function rather than in “delegation” from the “boss.” ~ Peter Drucker, 2008
This week’s entry in Maciariello (2014) A Year with Peter Drucker offers us examples from three great innovators in our history. These innovators are Wilson Greatbatch, Andy Grove, and Henry Ford. First of all that’s a pretty powerful trio of innovators to learn from. Greatbatch is known for developing the heart pacemaker, and then later developing the lithium iodide battery that allowed the pacemaker to go decades without battery replacement. Thus eliminating many operations for patients needing pacemakers. Of course, we know Andy Grove as one of the founders of Intel Corporation in 1968. Finally, I don’t really think I need to give an introduction to the third side of the triangle, Henry Ford.
In this week’s entry, Andy Grove discussed how in the beginning he was just one step away from everything, and now is many steps away from everything (Maciariello, 2014). He discussed how everything in the beginning was in his head. People in their initial group, while innovating, gravitated to the roles that fit them. The team built itself up and roles that were needed gravitated to appropriate team members (Maciariello, 2014). Then as the organization grew, however, tribes began to form and power struggles began to occur. This is when Grove realized he needed to shift from innovator to executive (Maciariello, 2014).
It was interesting for me as I read this story of Andy Grove how much similarity there is to the situations I have experienced in working as a part of a team to turnaround two different schools. In both situations it has been necessary to let the talent gravitate to roles that fit. But now, after a year (that was the same time frame at both schools), it was necessary to take a step back and analyze what everyone was doing. In fact, we had a mini-summit this spring using the essential questions of: What are these people doing?; Are they doing the right things?; and, How do we all support our teachers in doing the right things for our students? That might seem like an easy task, but there are so many parts to making sure a school is operating efficiently and effectively. As an organization grows and develops, there is a tendency to look inward. The organization must recognize, however, that as it changes in size, load, and complexity there is a need for the roles of the people, particularly the leader, in the organization. 
Additionally, we all know the story of Henry Ford as the greatest industrial innovator of all time. As the story goes, though, by 1927 the Ford Motor Company was a shambles. Really from 1927-1944, until Henry Ford II took the reigns, the company struggled mightily. In fact, Peter Drucker called it a “controlled experiment in mismanagement” (Maciariello, 2014, p. 198). Henry Ford, according to Maciariello (2014), provides us with a case study in executive mismanagement. Ford tested the hypothesis that as an organization grows it does not need professional leadership. Ford believed an organization should be run by a boss with helpers (Maciariello, 2014), not leaders. In other words, he believed in pushing tasks down to underlings to perform. In today’s lingo I call these the folks that are “email pushers.” Whatever is asked of them, they push the email to someone else to carry out. Really not leadership, or, at least I don’t think so. Ford’s experiment failed and we can all learn from his mistakes. I did a little further studying and Henry Ford II made sure those in the organization had the skills necessary to carry out leading the parts of the organization they were responsible and then Ford II gave them the latitude to lead. 
It would do us all good to learn from the lessons of all three of these great innovators turned executives.
Reference
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Memorial Day Reflections
This year’s Memorial Day is different for me. It has more meaning and has a more real context than any time in my life. I am so blessed to have had the opportunity to serve on The Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonel’s Honor Flight on May 16th as a Guardian. That experience changed my life forever. In my family growing up we always celebrated Memorial Day, or “Decoration Day” as my dad called it. That was actually the holiday’s first name. It began in the years immediately following the Civil War, at which time it was observed primarily as a day for “decorating” military graves with flowers and commemorating the fallen Union and Confederate soldiers. By the twentieth century, Memorial Day had been extended to honor all Americans who died in all wars while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
I’m often astonished at the lack of honor some display toward our Veterans. For us who sacrifice little—if anything—and yet have no qualms about enjoying the luxury and freedom provided by this country we belie our lack of gratitude with our cavalier attitudes toward those who have served our country. We should hold to the true meaning of this day. Alas, for too many Americans, Memorial Day has come to mean nothing more than another three-day weekend, albeit the one on which the beaches open, signifying the beginning of summer. Unfortunately, the tendency to see the holiday as merely an opportunity to attend a weekend cook-out obscures even the vestiges of what the day was meant to observe: a solemn time, serving both as catharsis for those who fought and survived, and to ensure that those who follow will not forget the sacrifice of those who died that the American Republic and the principles that sustain it, might live. Some examples might help us to understand what this really means.
These examples were plentiful for those of us taking part in the Honor Flight. Hearing of the sacrifices and seeing the emotions of the veterans on this trip were life changing for me. It was also a life changing experience for the Veterans as well. Allow me to share an excerpt from an email the Veteran I served as a Guardian for sent me yesterday:
“This morning particularly have been reflecting on our trip to DC . For me sharing that experience together produced a bond that seems to transcend the time we’ve known each other. At any rate reflecting today & tomorrow on the sacrifices of our fallen comrades . It seems the meaning of the day has become lost . Much like Christmas we forget it’s the celebration of our Savior’ birth. Finally 2 things: 1. YOU made our honor flight very special; 2. My life is richer having met & got to know you. God sure dealt us a good hand when he put us together. I don’t know what I would have felt if you hadn’t been with me.” ~ Dr, Jerry McCandless, Korean War Veteran
I am humbled at the thought of those who have put themselves in harms way on my/our behalf…people they don’t know. The beauty of the Honor flight is it gives us the chance to really get to know one another. The Honor Flight gave me the opportunity to better understand our nation’s history and appreciate the price paid for our freedom. I encourage all to find some way to serve our Veterans, whether through serving on an Honor Flight, or some other volunteer service. We need to all commit our time, talents, or treasures to our Veterans. Thank you to everyone who has served and those who are serving us through our military and our great country. I am in awe of all our heroes on this Memorial Day!
Nothing Works Forever: Perpetuating the Mission & Values of the Organization!
“Nothing works forever. Our purposes never change – but our methods and tactics must constantly change. It is amazing how quickly a successful organization can deteriorate into mediocrity.” ~ Rick Warren, Pastor and Founder of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California.
This week’s lesson in Maciariello’s (2014) A Year With Peter Drucker was based on an interview with one of my hero’s – Rick Warren. Dr. Warren founded Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., in 1980 with one family. Today, it is an evangelical congregation averaging 30,000 weekly attendees. Peter Drucker and Dr. Warren were friends and this week’s lesson was based on a 2003 interview. They discussed that organization must innovate and change. Organizations also tend to become bureaucratic and need to have conscience activities for maintaining and transmitting its core values (Maciariello, 2014). These principles should be implemented in a way that will perpetuate the mission and values of an organization and provide continuity, while also facilitating change.
The key here is facilitating needed innovative change, but at the same time having continuity. Tough order, huh? Drucker posited that we all need people committed to our vision our our teams, but we also sometimes need radical change (Maciariello, 2014). Drucker also argued that change and continuity are not opposites, but a continuum (Maciariello, 2014). If an organization does not change, it will die of being status-quot. In order to achieve continuity, therefore, an organization must be designed to change. Change and continuity are thus poles rather than opposites. Interestingly, I just spoke on this last week at the American Federation for Children National Education Policy Summit. In our panel I stated that in education and “school choice” that we were in danger of the new beginning to look like the old. In other words as a believer in “school choice,” we must make sure that the choices are not just some of the same old thing in a new wrapper. We must create schools that have the core value of all students can learn, but are differentiators in the way we do that. We need schools that educate better than anyone else and that have an “edge” or “niche” in doing so. In other words, a constant stream of incremental improvements will lead to substantial change and great schools over time. Schools, and all organizations, should therefore seek and reward continuous improvement activities. Continuous improvement must be one of our “BIG” initiatives to be working on in education, and all organizations for that matter.
According to Maciariello (2014) change can occur in two forms: 1.) creating new wealth through innovation; 2.) creating wealth by moving resources from low to high productivity. Competition speeds this process up. This is why I am such a believer in school choice. We cannot predict the future, so it is our job, as leaders, to have the core values in place to allow for changes in products, processes, and services that will continue to meet the needs of our customers in the future.
As an “Energetic Change Agent,” I know that change is risky and creating the future is a lofty goal, but it is much more risky to leave the future to chance. Are your organization’s core values strong enough and believed by all to make it possible plan for change? Are your own core values and change agent abilities such that you will be able to maintain organizational cohesiveness during necessary changes? Isn’t it excited to be creating the new future?
Reference
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Byron's Babbles 
1 comment