Farm Party Strategy 9.0
9th Annual Farm Party Banner
This past weekend my family and I had the opportunity to spend a few days up in the Ludington/Scottville, Michigan area for the Fourth of July weekend. The main objective was to attend the Ninth Annual Farm Party of our good friend, Kevin Eikenberry, and his family. He had been inviting us for the past several years and it seemed as if every year something came up preventing us from attending. This year, however, we made it happen. We had an absolutely wonderful time.
I believe the Annual Farm Party answers the three essential questions that Rachel E. Curtis and Elizabeth A. City pose in their great book Strategy in Action: How School Systems Can Support Powerful Learning and Teaching (2012). These questions are:
- What are we doing?
- Why are we doing it?
- How are we doing it?
While these seem to be simple questions; they are very complex to answer when used in the context of strategic planning for an organization.
So, let’s take a stab at these from the perspective of the Annual Farm Party.
- What are we doing? Ninth Annual Farm Party – Food, Hay Rides, Fireworks, Bonfires, Recreation, and Socializing
- Why are we doing it? Kevin hosts this party to honor his father, family, neighbors, and friends. He is really providing a family/community reunion of sorts. Except, it is much more fun than any family reunion I have ever been to.
- How are we doing it? Kevin hosts at his family farm he grew up on. He really relies on neighbors, family, and friends to pull the party off. I was amazed to watch everyone doing their “jobs.” It was a little daunting to be a “first-timer” to the party, because I had no “job.” Kevin even went so far as to put in 30 amp electric service boxes for those of us who had brought travel travel trailers or RVs to stay in.
Annual Farm Party Banners
This principle of every person person knowing what his or her role is to accomplishing the goals, mission, and vision of the organization is one of the most important lessons I learned from Liz City and Rachel Curtis during my work at Harvard University for Strategy in Action. These two great teachers of strategy drove home the fact that each of us and our team members needs to know our role in carrying out the theory of action of our organizations. Again, it is worth repeating – Every person needs to know his or her role in carrying out the mission, vision, and goals of the organization.
So, back to the Annual Farm Party model. There were individuals who the job of cooking on the grill, cooking in the house, building the bonfire and keeping it stoked, conducting hay rides, bringing picnic tables, setting up food tables, banner making and signing, and on and on. Anyway, you get the idea – everyone knew their role. In fact the roles were so well defined that as an outsider (don’t confuse outsider with not feeling welcome, we were welcomed) I felt like I was being lazy and not helping. But…this was evidence of a well oiled machine.
The take away from me, however, is as a school leader I need to make sure to be very deliberate when a new team member comes on board to make sure he or she understands very quickly what their role is in the goals and action steps of our strategic plan. As the Harvard University research shows, individuals need clearly defined roles to operate at the highest level of engagement. Teams, on the other hand, as the same research showed, need the goals, but need to not be given a prescription of how to carry out the mission. The teams must be the innovators. In fact, to this end as a part of really studying the school we are turning around we have the following written on my office white board at all times:
- What are these people doing?
- Are they doing the right things?
- Then, making what they are doing more visible to everyone!
“It turns out that all influence geniuses focus on behaviors…. They don’t develop an influence strategy until they’ve carefully identified the specific behaviors they want to change. They start by asking: In order to improve our existing situation, what must people actually do? ~ Authors of Influencer: The Power to Change Anything
Thanks Kevin and family for the great Fourth of July, inviting our family to the Ninth Annual Farm Party, and the great exemplar of team members knowing their roles in the Annual Farm Party mission and the answering of the three important questions of strategy:
- What are we doing?
- Why are we doing it?
- How are we doing it?
Reference
Curtis, R. E. & City, E.A. (2012). Strategy in action: How school systems can support powerful learning and teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
.
Fishing for Strategy
14 Pound King Salmon Caught By Heath!
While our family was in Michigan this past weekend, my son and I went fishing in Lake Michigan. There was something really special about being on the boat and headed out to the middle of Lake Michigan at 5:00 a.m. on the morning of the Fourth of July. It was cold and foggy and I couldn’t help but think of George Washington crossing the Delaware.
I was struck by how the captain of the Dreamweaver III, our charter, used strategic planning to give us a great experience. Strategic planning is about the allocation of resources to carry out the mission, vision, and goals of the organization. Our mission, vision, and goal was very simple: Catch Fish!
To that end, our captain, Shane Ruboyianes, had pulled satellite images of water temperatures and had plotted the best fishing location based on the catches of the previous week’s excursions and the temperature bands on the satellite images. He explained that the band was wider on our day of fishing than on the previous days. The tighter the band, he explained, the tighter the fish hang to the edge of the warm temperature band. Thus, the greater the likelihood of catching our limit – five each. Our captain then informed us that he thought our best strategy (he used that term) was to go one hour out (one way) to the middle of Lake Michigan to fish. On a seven hour fishing trip we would be committing two hours of our trip (time resource) to this strategy. We committed the two hour resource of time.
Heath with the lure he caught his big King Salmon on!
A Collection of Some of Our Lures Used
The Product of our Great Morning Together!
- What are we doing? Fishing on Lake Michigan
- Why are we doing it? Catch Salmon to eat and spend quality time together as dad and lad
- How are we doing it? Hired a highly recommended charter boat. Based on water temperature maps we committed to going 30 miles (one hour) out. Based on the fish caught, we changed lures accordingly.
So, what’s the lesson? We made a commitment to where we would fish – it would have been tough to change after committing to this. Conversely, we were agile about lures – constantly changing according to what was being caught.
How can you relate this story to your organization’s strategic planning?
Is your organization agile enough to make course corrections according to what the data is telling you?
Reference
Curtis, R. E. & City, E.A. (2012). Strategy in action: How school systems can support powerful learning and teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Network Society
This week’s lesson from Peter Drucker (Maciariello, 2014) dealt with how many organizations in our society are becoming network organizations. A networked organization is one that operates within a system of interdependent organizations for the purpose of achieving objectives that are agreeable to partner organizations. Many schools, including my own, have a number of partner organizations, whether outsourced services or community partners. This lesson really gave me an opportunity to think about the behaviors necessary to make a network successful:
- Trust
- Shared Values
- Integrity
- Commitment
- Goal Alignment
- Continuous Communication
- Conflict Resolution Processes
In the partnership of a network there can be no command and control (Maciariello, 2014). The questions must be, “What are the objectives?; “What are our values?”; and, “What are our ways of doing things?” Networked organizations are demanding to lead, and rely on developing and maintaining strong personal relationships among the partnering organizations. A network is somewhat like a team, except the network builds the team out of a wide variety of organizations.
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.
Nervous As Kittens
As I was reading during my personal professional growth time this morning, I read a comment by Richard Branson in his great book The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership where he said he was nervous as kittens. After reading this I thought about our six newborn kittens we have in the barn right now. What a fitting phrase “Nervous As Kittens” is, because they are just that – nervous. It must be noted that I love cats. I believe what is attractive to me is the fact that they are not pack animals, like dogs. Cats are perfectly content to play by themselves or with other cats.
One thing I learned growing up on a farm that valued having an abundance of cats is the mother cats role. Mothers are key to having happy, secure kittens. Well socialized cats are more likely to have well socialized kittens. We always work very hard at spending time with our cats so they are socialized to people. Kittens often mirror their mothers’ calm or fearful attitude toward people or other animals; this is a normal part of their socialization. In other words, we play a vital role in the development of kittens. By petting, talking to and playing with our new kittens, we can help them develop good people skills. Then I read some startling research: kittens who are gently handled 15-40 minutes per day during their first seven weeks are more likely to develop larger brains. That really got me thinking about the connection to leadership, which was what I was reading about in the first place.
So, I compared what I learned and reflected on with kittens to that of leading people in an organization. What I thought about was modeling and exemplars.
Modeling and Exemplars
Kittens learn many important lessons from their mothers. They learn from their mothers by observing. Research shows that kittens taken from their mothers at weaning are much slower to develop. As leaders, we need to learn from this and model for those in our organization the proper behaviors. Make no mistake, I am not saying I do this well. If being honest we would probably all say we need to be much better at this. I certainly do!
I am a big believer in using exemplars in education and learning. Sometimes people want to argue with me and say that the student will just do the assignment exactly like the exemplar. Well, duh, that is exactly what I want them to do. It amazes me how people will resist this with students, but in real world, real work we are given templates and exemplars all the time. In fact we would not think of beginning many projects without them. That is why I believe they are even more important for our students.
How many times have you said, “Let’s not reinvent the wheel.” What you were really saying is we need a model or exemplar. Certainly nothing wrong with that! Next time we reflect on those we lead and the students some of us educate, let’s not forget the lessons of the nervous kittens and make sure we are providing the modeling and exemplars we have learned to be so very important from the mother cat.
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.
The Reward of Service
“…the reward of service is more service.”
~ Chester I. Barnard
We can learn a lot about how to motivate our team members by thinking about what motivates volunteers to do the work they do for organizations for no pay. They provide services for the reward of the service itself. Satisfaction comes from successfully applying one’s expertise to a worthwhile purpose (Maciariello, 2014).
“The management of people is a marketing job.” ~ Peter Drucker
We need to think about those working in our organization and consider how we would need to serve them if they were volunteers. Volunteers have to get more satisfaction from their work that paid employees, precisely because they don’t get a paycheck (Maciariello, 2014). Volunteers need, above all, challenges. As we know, one of the most important factors in workforce engagement is the employee believing he or she is truly making a difference. Additionally, engaged employees are ones that believe they are being challenged.
Therefore, don’t forget the reward of service. Consider what is truly motivating to the people in your organization. Appeal to the full range of their motivations, not merely to financial remuneration. It has been my experience that the financial compensation is not usually the top factor determining high employee engagement. This is why I always strive to have a “Make it so!” environment for our staff. In this environment staff comes to me with ideas and solutions well thought out and it is my goal to always say, “Make it so!”
Reference
Maciariello, J. A. (2014). A year with Peter Drucker: 52 weeks of coaching for leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.
Authenticity 101
“Authentic leadership is the full expression of “me” for the benefit of “we.” ~ Henna Inman
I had the great honor of receiving an advance copy of Henna Inman’s great book, Wired for Authenticity: Seven Practices to Inspire, Adapt, & Lead. What an awesome read. I gave the book five stars on both GoodReads and Amazon. Here is what I wrote as a review: “This is the only book out there that actually gives leaders best practices for being authentic. If I had to retitle the book, it would be: ‘Authenticity 101.’ This is a must read for all who want to be authentic in dreaming big and leading change and innovation.”
Inman’s Step 1 is to “Find Your ‘why.'” We learn best when we set a goal. Inman suggested writing a goal in the margin of the book that I, as the reader, wanted to be authentic in. I wrote, policy consensus and implementation. In order for us to truly be authentic, we need to lose who we think others believe we ought to be, or what is “good” and become who we really are. Being authentic means we will have our own ideas, core values, and beliefs. Guess what? That’s an incredible thing! Can you imagine how bad our constitution would have been if all the founding fathers would have had group think and all agreed on everything? I, for one, am glad they had disagreements and heated arguments, but in the end reached consensus and implemented a constitution that has stood the test of time. They were truly Leading Audaciously!
“We can choose to create within a high-change, high-uncertainty environment only by being in our authentic selves – not the saboteurs. ~ Henna Inman
“The trouble is when our identity starts to limit us and how we perceive our self-worth.” ~ Henna Inman
We must dare to dream big and lead with audacity. I have blogged about this before using my heroes the Wright Brothers as the example. Click here to read that post. Inman explains that when we dream big, we invite all of our saboteurs in for a feeding frenzy. When we get out of our comfort zones and do the audacious and pursue our big dreams we wake up our saboteurs to show up and try to make us fail. That’s ok. We have to continue our climb for what we believe in and not be intimidated. We must also strive to not be the saboteur and work to build consensus by turning the full expression of all the “me’s” into the good of the “we!”
“Our becoming who we are comes from our intentions and actions, not from concepts or theory.”
~ Henna Inman
Opportunities, Competence, & Commitment
“Now, what does this mean for you?” ~ Julius Rosenberg of Sears in 1917
Rosenberg asked each of his store managers this question in order to integrate their efforts into the overall mission of Sears. The mission statement for Sears at the time was: “Your job is not selling, it is buying.” Rosenberg believed that his sales managers needed to be making sure that Sears was putting the right products on the shelves, not just being good salesmen (Maciariello, 2014). This mission statement helped those at Sears to “do the right thing.” In other words all of the employees at Sears were able to see the whole of the organization’s mission as one’s personal mission. This also helps all of those in the organization to “do things right” (Maciariello, 2014). This is a very important part of the whole mission statement, vision, and strategic planning process – all in the organization must fully understand his or her role in carrying our the plans and doing the right things. It is also important all parts of the mission statement fit reality.
A well written mission statement, according to Peter Drucker (Maciariello, 2014), can be used to effectively allocate the time, talents, and resources of all the people in an organization. One of the things I picked up from this week’s lesson from Drucker is: “It [mission statement] can be used as a recruiting, appraisal, and retention tool to ensure that those in an organization are focused on doing the right thing (Maciariello, 2014, p. 177)”. We need to spend more time talking and asking questions like Rosenberg’s. In fact, I am going to start asking that question after presenting our mission statement: “Now, what does that mean for you.” I am very excited to have learned this today!
When there is a well-produced mission statement, decisions can be guided toward doing the right thing and consensus. In order for this to work constructive dissent must be encouraged to prevent organizational obsolescence (Maciariello, 2014). Drucker said, “If you can bring dissent and disagreement to a common understanding of what the decision is all about, you create unity in action, and in all things trust. And trust requires that dissent come out in the open, and that it be seen as disagreement (Maciariello, 2014, p. 181)”. We must focus on what is right, not who is right.
Does your mission statement accurately your organization’s competence and commitment?
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 
leave a comment