In Search of a True Patriot

This morning I saw Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota and professional wrestler, on Piers Morgan (CNN).

He was promoting his new book Democrips and ReBloodicans. 

He was comparing our two-party system to a bunch of L.A. street gangs!

On one hand, he sounded crazy—claiming our politicians were nothing but thugs --fighting each other to get and maintain street power, rather than doing the right thing for everyone in this country.

Yet, despite Ventura not being the most eloquent speaker, some of his craziness sounded spot on.

Politics has gotten way too political!

The politicians stick to their party lines—pointing fingers and denigrating the other side—for our country’s problems.  Each side claiming they can do better.

One side taxing and spending, the other side cutting both—both sides driving our countries finances over the financial cliff.

Dictators are driven by their desire to get and hold power as long as their military might and repression of the masses holds out. 

But democracy is supposed to be different—we are a nation that takes pride in looking at both sides of the equation and coming to a middle ground that makes the best sense for everyone.

What happened?

Each side has pushed things just a little too far and then farther—getting power and then abusing power for their aims, forgetting about compromise, and leaving the other side lying in wait for when they can pounce on their opponents and re-assume power to undue what the other has done and push ahead their agenda.

This is a vicious game of ping-pong, where a volley is never achieved, but rather each side treats every shot as their last.

Civility and political correctness has left the palace.

In its place, a desire to win power and keep power at all costs.

An infatuation with doing for themselves at the expense of others—all the while telling themselves, this is truly for the good of the country.

Or like they used to say on the TV show Hill Street Blues—“let’s do it to them, before they do it to us!”

A country cannot successfully govern, by doing and undoing or by looking out for only 1/2 of the constituents.

Some way must be found to restore leadership—where government is again recognized as by the people and for the people, where integrity is valued more than power, and where our country’s future prosperity and survival trumps a parties’ survival in the next election and their partisanship agendas.

The examples are almost too numerous to mention with our political parties locking horns while budget and tax showdowns loom, deficits continue to boom, government shutdowns are being groomed, healthcare reform is up for grabs, employment continues to sag, and we wax and wane between war and peace—now cyber and kinetic—in hot spots around the globe.

Civil war is such a strong term—and in the Civil War, this country saw the loss of more people than all the other wars we have been in combined. 

Again, we face a type of civil war, where one side is trying to beat the other rather than join forces in conquering our nation’s ills and building our capabilities.

The results can be a similar devastation where problems fester until they explode and lives are lost, not in one side picking up arms against the other, but because we self-destruct in our own greed and contempt.

Leadership bridges, not divides, from across the political spectrum and all our leaders are needed now more than ever.

Jesse you are a "crazy dog," but you say some things that are undeniable truth.

We need to look beyond the surface of unconventional people and hear the message that running politics like street gangs is a losing battle—but we can change rivalry to partnership if we see past the different colors, and instead focus on the red, white, and blue.

(Source Photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)

In Search of a True Patriot

Returning From The Brink Of National Suicide

It is not only because we are in an election year that politics in Washington D.C. has become more cutting, oppositional, and unproductive.

Unfortunately, there has been a downward trend for some time and we saw this recently with everything from confrontations to raising the federal debt ceiling, passing a federal budget, near government shutdowns, and what has now become regular showdowns over every major legislation from healthcare to deficit reduction.

We are a nation with government at the crossroads of neuroticism where situations get treated as virtually unsolvable by oppositional political movements who themselves appear hopeless of genuinely working together. 

Harvard Business Review (March 2012) in an article titled "What's Wrong With U.S. Politics," described the "ineffectiveness of America's [current] political system," where instead of opposing sides coming together to craft compromise positions that bring together the best of multiple points of view to find a balanced approach and prudent course for the American people, now instead compromise is seen as surrender, and "the fervor to win too often appears to trump everything else."

While traditionally the source of political parties and politics itself in America is founded in the opposing views of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton--one who opposed strong central government and the other who favored it, these diametric opposites where a source of national strength, because they strived ultimately to find an almost perfect compromise to whatever ailed the nation.

However, something has profoundly changed--from where "rigorous rivalry between the two political philosophies used to be highly productive" to the current situation of absolutism, where like in July 2011 debt-ceiling crisis, "some politicians even suggested that a government default or shutdown would be less damaging than compromise."  

When last August, Standard and Poor took the historically unprecedented step of downgrading U.S. debt from AAA to AA+, they cited "that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions had weakened."

This should be of dire concern to everyone in this nation, because we all depend on government to solve problems and do what is ultimately right for the people. 

One of the suggestions that HBR makes is grounded in the techniques of negotiation, where we facilitate and help each side "not merely split the difference," but also "articulate their highest parties, with an eye toward facilitating the best of best of both over time."

While this is certainly an important element in moving to compromise, there is another core element that is missing and needs to be addressed and that is a mutual respect for all parties and points of view, one where we see ourselves first as one nation, and only second as political parties and positions--in other words, we recognize that our common values and goals obviate the more subtle differences between us.

This coming together as a nation can only happen when there is basic trust between the all sides, so that each knows that the other will not take advantage of them when they wield power, but rather that the views of all will be respected and duly represented in any solution, and moreover that the core beliefs of each will be protected at some fundamental level, even when they are not in power or outvoted.

What this means is that compromise, balance, and fairness prevail over whichever political party resides in power in at the time, and assures each side of the same treatment and protections under the other.  

Violating this ultimate balance of power is tantamount to taking the first shot in a situation akin to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), when each side wields destructive nuclear capability. 

With critical decisions coming up again on deficit reduction, federal debt ceiling, and social entitlements and national defense spending, and each side digging in, we are fast approaching the equivalent of a thermonuclear showdown in politics, and it is time for both sides to pull back from the brink of national suicide and to once again reinforce the basic principles of mutual respect and enduring compromise--even when one side, or another, has the upper hand. 

As a next step, let each side of the aisle demonstrate true compromise in negotiations with the other to reestablish confidence and trust that neither will be wholly overrun or defeated in the political wrangling and fighting that ensues.

The important question in politics must not be which side will wield power, but who can bring the best leadership to the nation to forge a path of sensibility, balance and mutual respect to any solution. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Elvert Barnes)

Returning From The Brink Of National Suicide

Your Leadership Ticket Is Waiting

A lot of colleagues tell me that they hate office politics, and for many it represents their one-way ticket to ongoing bickering, infighting, and a virtual endless cycle of unsatisfied wants and unhappiness.

Office politics is where the interests of multiple parties either converge or collide--where convergence occurs through feelings of interdependence (i.e. enterprise) and acts of teamwork, while collisions predominate by stressing independence (i.e. isolationism) and head-butting.

This is where good and bad leadership can make a huge difference.

- One one hand, a bad leader sees the world of the office as "us versus them" and fights almost indiscriminately for his/her share of scope, resources, influence, and power.

- On the other hand, a good leader looks out for the good of the organization and its mission, and works to ensure the people have what they need to get their jobs done right, regardless of who is doing it or why.

Thus, good leaders inspire trust and confidence, because they, without doubt, put the mission front and center--and egos are left at door.

Harvard Business Review (January-February 2011) in an article called "Are You A Good Boss--Or A Great One?" identifies a couple of key elements that inherently create opposition and competitiveness within the enterprise:

1) Division of Labor--This is the where we define that I do this and you do that. This has the potential to "create disparate groups with disparate and even conflicting goals and priorities." If this differentiation is not well integrated back as interrelated parts of an overall organizational identity and mission, then feelings of "us versus them" and even arguments over whose jobs and functions are more important and should come first in the pecking order will tear away at the organizational fiber and chances of success.

2) Scarce Resources--This is where limited resources to meet requirements and desirements impact the various parts of the organization, because not everyone's wishes can be pursued at the same time or even necessarily, at all.  Priorities need to be set and tradeoffs made in what will get done and what won't. Again, without a clear sense of unity versus disparity, scarcity can quickly unravel the organization based on people's  feelings of unfairness, dissatisfaction, unrest, and potentially even "mob rule" when people feel potentially threatened.

Hence, a bad leader works the system--seeing it as a win-lose scenario--where his/her goals and objectives are necessarily more important than everyone else, and getting the resources (i.e. having a bigger sandbox or "building an empire") is seen as not only desirable but critical to their personal success--here, their identity and loyalty is to their particular niche silo.

However, a good leader cares for the system--looking to create win-win situations--where no one element is better or more important than another, rather where they all must work together synergistically for the greater good of the organization. In this case, resources go not to who fights dirtier, but to who will most benefit the mission with them--in this case, their allegiance and duty is to the greater enterprise and its mission.

HBR states well that "In a real team [with a real leader], members hold themselves and one another jointly accountable. They share a genuine conviction they will succeed or fail together."

Organizations need not be snake pits with cut throat managers wanting to see others fail and waiting to take what they can for themselves, rather there is another way, and that is to lead with a shared sense of purpose, meaning, and teamwork. 

And this is achieved through creating harmony among organizational elements and not class warfare between them.

This type of leader that creates unity--builds enduring strength--and has the ticket we need to organizational success.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Your Leadership Ticket Is Waiting

Dale Carnegie's Advice In The Age of Social Media

Dale Carnegie's book "How To Win Friends and Influence People" is a classic (1936) and has sold more than 16 million copies worldwide.

Carnegie was an expert in techniques for self improvement and he conducted corporate training to make people better with other people.

Dale Carnegie's focus on the human capital side of management was a breakthrough in his day when many other management gurus like Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Edward Deming and others were focused on the maximizing the production side of management through time and motion studies, functional specialization, and quality management.

Carnegie recognized that to really get things done in the organization or out, first, we need to be able to get along with others--make friends and influence people.

His ideas are principles that are as true today in the age of social media and telework as in the days of line production.

Some examples and how these might apply today:

1) "Don't criticize, condem, or complain"--It's easy to put somebody or their ideas down, but it's infinitely more difficult to be constructive by offering alternatives or a better way. Today, we try to focus on contributing something positive and being solutions-oriented whether through crowdsourcing, answering questions where you are a subject matter expert, innovating improved business processes or technical solutions, or even just rating or liking what you think is a positive idea or share.

2) "Become genuinely interested in other people"--It's easy, especially today, to become self absorbed in the world of social media, putting out new pictures of yourself, slideshows from your work, videos of your doings, and newsflashes from every moment of your life, etc. However, as Carnegie would point out, this will not make you popular or influential. Rather, use the social web to learn about others, interact with them, and build relationships. In the end, it's not about you, but about building more "we" and "us".

3) "Begin with praise and honest appreciation"--I remember learning in one of the oodles of management and leadership classes that I have been fortunate to participate in that we should always sandwich criticism between two layers of praise. Unfortunately, the praise in this context is usually not of the highest quality and sincerity, or deeply felt. But today, in an age of social media, I think we are learning to all be more open and honest with each other. Heaping praise on people, products, and services that are outstanding and putting criticism where it is due to hold unscrupulous vendors and poor quality products to answer publicly online.

4) "Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires"--It is not always easy to see things from some else's vantage point. We all walk in our own shoes and usually can't stand the smell of someones else's. But in the age of sharing and collaboration, it is not really enough to put your ideas out there and always be right; instead we need to look at things from multiple perspectives, vet ideas, put them to the test, let others improve upon them, and build a better "widget" or decision collaboratively. By sympathizing with where others are coming from and looking for the merits of their points of view and why it is important to them, we can better negotiate a solution that is a win-win for all.

In a sense, I think this is really what Dale Carnegie was trying to get across when it came to winning friends and influencing people, it's not creating a win for me, but about creating a win-win for each other, where we all walk away from the table feeling good that we were not only heard, but also understood and worked with. Then, we all own a piece of the solution; we have skin in the game, and we can work together to implement it as a team of one.

(Source Mind Map: here)

Dale Carnegie's Advice In The Age of Social Media

Listening to Each Other to Succeed as a Team

There is an oft-cited best practice for conflict resolution called the speaker-listener technique—in which the speaker explains their position and the listener repeats back to the speaker what he heard him say. Then the speaker and listener switch roles.

After both sides have had a chance to express themselves, and the other side has repeated what they heard, both parties are ready to resolve their differences with greater understanding of each other.

The Wall Street Journal, 27 July 2010, in an article called “Fighting Happily Ever After” promotes the speaker-listener technique for improving couples communications and making happier, longer-lasting relationships.

I believe that the speaker-listener technique works not only because it improves the actual information flow and understanding between people, but also because it improves the perception that people have towards each other—from being adversarial to being collaborative.

In the sheer act of reaching out to others through genuine listening and understanding, we establish the trust of the other person that we want to work toward a win-win solution, as opposed to a clobber the other guy with what you want to do, and go home victorious.

In contrast, think of how many times people don’t really talk with each other, but rather at each other. When this occurs, there is very little true interaction of the parties—instead it is a dump by one on the other. This is particularly of concern to an organization when the speaker is in a position of authority and the listener has legitimate concerns that don’t get heard or taken seriously.

For example, when the boss (as speaker) “orders” his/her employees to action instead of engaging and discussing with them, the employees (as listener) may never really understand why they are being asked to perform as told (what the plan is) or even permitted to discuss how best they can proceed (what the governance is).

Here, there is no real two-way engagement. Rather, workers are related to by their superiors as automatons or chess pieces rather than as true value-add people to the mission/organization.

In the end, it is not very fulfilling for either party—more than that when it comes to architecture, governance, and execution, we frequently end up with lousy plans, decisions, and poorly performing investments.

Instead, think about the potential when employers and employees work together as a team to solve problems. With leaders facilitating strategic discussions and engaging with their staffs in open dialogue to innovate and seeking everyone’s input, ideas, reactions. Here employees not only know the plan and understand it, but are part of its development. Further, people are not just told what to do, but they can suggest “from the front lines” what needs to be done and work with others from a governance model on where this fits in the larger organizational context.

Speaking—listening—and understating each other is the essence of good conflict management and of treating people with decency and respect. Moreover, it is not just for couple relationship building, but also for developing strong organizational bonds and successfully planning and execution.

To me, creating a framework for conflict resolution and improved communication is an important part of what good enterprise architecture and IT governance is all about in the organization. Yet we don’t often talk about these human factors in technology settings. Rather the focus is on the end state, the tool, the more impersonal technical aspects of IT implementation and compliance.

Good architecture and governance processes help to remedy this a bit:

With architecture—we work together to articulate a strategic roadmap for the organization; this provides the goals, objectives, initiatives, and milestones that we work towards in concert.

With governance—we listen to each other and understand new requirements, their strategic alignment, return on investment, and the portfolio management of them. We listen, we discuss, we understand, and we make IT investment decisions accordingly.

Nevertheless, at this time the focus in IT is still heavily weighted toward operations. Research on IT employee morale shows that we need to better incorporate and mature our human capital management practices. We need to improve how we speak with, listen to and build understanding of others not only because that is the right thing to do, but because that will enable us to achieve better end results.

Listening to Each Other to Succeed as a Team

TEAM: Together Everyone Achieves More

People are selfish; they think in terms of win-lose, not win-win. The cost of this kind of thinking is increasingly unacceptable in a world where teamwork matters more than ever.

Today, the problems we face are sufficiently complex that it takes a great deal more collaboration than ever to yield results. For example, consider the recent oil spill in the Gulf, not to mention the ongoing crises of our time (deadly diseases, world hunger, sustainable energy, terrorism).

When we don’t work together, the results can be catastrophic. Look at the lead-up to 9-11, the poster child for what can happen if when we fail to connect the dots.

A relay race is a good metaphor for the consequences of poor teamwork. As Fast Company (“Blowing the Baton Pass,” July/August 2010) reports, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the USA’s Darvis Patton was on the third leg of the race, running neck and neck with a runner from Trinidad when he and his relay partner, Tyson Gay, blew it:

“Patton rounded the final turn, approaching…Gay, who was picking up speed to match Patton. Patton extended the baton, Gay reached back, and the baton hit his palm. Then, somehow it fell. The team was disqualified.”

Patton and Gay were each world-class runners on their own, but the lack of coordination between them resulted in crushing defeat.

In the business realm, we saw coordination breakdown happen to JetBlue in February 2007, when “snowstorms had paralyzed New York airports, and rather than cancel flights en masse, Jet Blue loaded up its planes…and some passengers were trapped for hours.”

Why do people in organizations bicker instead of team? According to FC, it’s because we “underestimate the amount of effort needed to coordinate.” I believe it’s really more than that – we don’t underestimate it, but rather we are too busy competing with each other (individually, as teams, as departments, etc.) to recognize the overarching importance of collaboration.

This is partly because we see don’t see others as helping us. Instead we (often erroneously) see them as potential threats to be weakened or eliminated. We have blinders on and these blinders are facilitated and encouraged by a reward system in our organizations that promotes individualism rather than teamwork. (In fact, all along the way, we are taught that we must compete for scarce resources – educational slots, marriage partners, jobs, promotions, bonuses and so on.)

So we think we are hiring the best and the brightest. Polished resume, substantial accomplishments, nice interview, solid references, etc. And of course, we all have the highest expectations for them. But then even the best employees are challenged by organizational cultures where functional silos, “turf wars”, and politicking prevail. Given all of the above, why are we surprised by their failure to collaborate?

Accordingly, in an IT context, project failure has unfortunately become the norm rather than an exception. We can have individuals putting out the best widgets, but if the widgets don’t neatly fit together, aren’t synchronized for delivery on schedule and within budget, don’t meet the intent of the overall customer requirements, and don’t integrate with the rest of the enterprise—then voilá, another failure!

So what do we need to become better at teamwork?

• Realize that to survive we need to rely on each other and work together rather than bickering and infighting amongst ourselves.
• Develop a strong, shared vision and a strategy/plan to achieve it—so that we all understand the goals and are marching toward it together.
• Institute a process to ensure that the contributions of each person are coordinated— the outputs need to fit together and the outcomes need to meet the overarching objectives.
• Reward true teamwork and disincentivize people who act selfishly, i.e. not in the interest of the team and not for the sake of mission.

Teamwork has become very cliché, and we all pay lip service to it in our performance appraisals. But if we don’t put aside our competitiveness and focus on the common good soon, then we will find ourselves sinking because we refused to swim as a team.

TEAM: Together Everyone Achieves More

Creating Win-Win and Enterprise Architecture

We are all familiar with conflict management and day-to-day negotiations in our everyday leadership role in our organizations, and the key to successful negotiation is creating win-win situations.

In the national bestseller, Getting to Yes, by Fisher and Ury, the authors call out the importance of everyday negotiation and proposes a new type of negotiation called "principled negotiation".

“Everyone negotiates something every day…negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from others. It is a back-and-forth communciation designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed. More and more occasions require negotiation. Conflict is a growth industry…whether in business, government, or the family, people reach most decisions through negotiation.”

There are two standard ways to negotiate that involve trading off between getting what you want and getting along with people:

Soft—“the soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflict and so makes concessions readily in order to reach agreement. He wants an amicable resolution yet he often ends up exploited and feeling bitter.”

Hard—“the hard negotiator sees any situation as a contest of wills in which the side that takes more extreme positions and holds out londer fares better. He want to win yet he often ends up producing an equally hard response which exhausts him and his resources and harms his relationship with the other side.”

The third way to negotiate, developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project, is Principled Negotiation.

Principled Negotiation—“neither hard nor soft, but rather both hard and soft…decide issues on their merits rather than through a haggling process…you look for mutual gains wherever possible, and that where your interests conflict, you should insist that the results be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side.”

In principled negotiation, the method is based on the following:

1. People—participants are not friends and not adversaries, but rather problem solvers
2. Goal—the goal is not agreement or victory, but rather a “wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably”
3. Stance—your stance is “soft on the people, hard on the problem”
4. Pressure—you don’t yield or apply pressure, but rather “reason and be open to reasons”
5. Position—you don’t change your position easily or dig in, but rather you “focus on interests, not positions”
6. Solution—the optimal solution is win-win; you develop “options for mutual gain”

In User-centric EA, there are many situations that involve negotiation, and using principled negotiation to develop win-win solutions for the participants is critical for developing wise solutions and sustaining important personal relationships.

• Building and maintaining the EA—first of all, just getting people to participate in the process of sharing information to build and maintain an EA involves negotiation. In fact, the most frequent question from those asked to participate is “what’s in it for me?” So enterprise architects must negotiate with stakeholders to share information and participate and take ownership in the EA initiative.
• Sound IT governance—second, IT governance, involves negotiating with program sponsors on business and technical alignment and compliance issues. Program sponsors and project managers may perceive enterprise architects as gatekeepers and your review board and submission forms or checklists as a hindrance or obstacle rather than as a true value-add, so negotiation is critical with these program/project managers to enlist their support and participation in the review, recommendation, and decision process and follow-up on relevant findings and recommendations from the governance board.
• Robust IT planning—third, developing an IT plan involves negotiation with business and technical partners to develop vision, mission, goals, objectives, initiatives, milestones, and measures. Everyone has a stake in the plan and negotiating the plan elements and building consensus is a delicate process.
  

In negotiating for these important EA deliverables, it’s critical to keep in mind and balance the people and the problem. Winning the points and alienating the people is not a successful long-term strategy. Similarly, keeping your associates as friends and conceding on the issues, will not get the job done. You must develop win-win solutions that solve the issues and which participants feel are objective, fair, and equitable. Therefore, using principled negotiation, being soft on people and hard on the problem is the way to go.

Creating Win-Win and Enterprise Architecture