Death comes calling

Thank you for overwhelming response to my last article ‘Does performance matter?’ Many of you have asked me tips to further improve visibility and build relationships. ‘Network map’ is a concept that I have been sharing with people whom I have been coaching for last three years. I’ll share the same in my next article. Today, I am in a somber and reflective mood and would like to write about another key topic – ‘Death comes calling’

Over the last two years, I have come across many people that I know who are afflicted either with cancer or by stroke. While some of them thankfully recovered, few others were not that fortunate. Those people, who did recover, had to go through a traumatic phase of their life. One of my close friends mentioned the following to me – ‘When you go through this low phase of your life, you suddenly realize that you got all your priorities in life wrong. What were very important to me earlier, like rating, bonus, promotion, money etc. did not mean anything at all in my life. Instead I regretted that I could not focus upon some of the most important things in my life.’ Luckily for my friend, she got a second chance and is able to address her regrets. Infact, I had seen that people who went through such traumatic phase are happier now than before. What about us? Will we get a second chance?

Are you living ‘YOUR’ life? The word ‘YOUR’ is important out here. Are you living a life that is driven by your passions/happiness or are you living a life that is good in the eyes of others? Let me put down here three aspects of how we tend to live our life:

Judgment: There are two ways of living our life – driven by an Internal scorecard or External scorecard. People who are driven by Internal scorecard are those who set their own goals and measure their success against these goals. They have their own barometer of whether they are being successful or not. People driven by External scorecard are those whose success is dependent upon what others think about them. Their success primarily depends on ‘Status’ in the eyes of other people. Unfortunately, most of us fall in the second category – driven by External scorecards. Therefore, all our actions are prefaced by ‘what others would think of me if I do xxxx?’ We live in the world of judgments – constantly either judging others or fettering how others are judging us. Why is it so important about how others think of us? Why do we give so much value to others views or opinions?

Deferring: We defer most decisions in our lives to other people that we have come to a state where we do not even know what we want. Let me give you examples from professional arena (and it is similar in personal arena too). We want our bosses to tell us what should be our next role. We want them to validate our strengths or weaknesses (unfortunately most people do not know their strengths/weaknesses. You are dependent upon your boss – who is just a part of your life; in most cases less than three years of your overall life – to tell you about yourself). We need our bosses to tell us what training programs we should go to and what initiatives should we be leading. Why do we defer so much? Why can’t we take control of our lives? Why can’t we KNOW about ourselves? Bosses are highly experienced and knowledgeable people but they cannot know/understand you as much as yourself. I am a manager and it applies even to me too. There is no way I can understand my direct reports as much as themselves.

Important People: When we give value to views/opinions of other people, we always go wrong about who the important people are. We value so much opinion of our peers, bosses, and colleagues that we just ignore the most important people of our life – our family. When did you last seek feedback from your spouse? (Now, this often turns into a joke but in reality it is the spouse that is an integral part of our life, not our manager). When have we taken a pause and reflected how good a father/mother we are, how good a son/daughter we are, how good a friend we are? How many times have we taken a pause to reflect on what our spouse, children, parents, friends are thinking of us?

I am not saying views of other people are not important. Living in the world we are, we need to manage perceptions of other people as they have a significant impact on our own success. But I am asking you, to know about yourself and see if you could even give yourself a chance to pursue your passions and lead a happier life.

Take examples of inspiring leaders – Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Steve Jobs and many others. They achieved an iconic status, success in their lives and more importantly, led a happier life because they pursued their passions. If they would have led their life on how others perceived them, they would not have made a mark on this world. What about many of us? We are living an insipid, totally uninspiring life driven and controlled by others views of us.

It’s time for us to break these shackles. It’s time for freedom. It’s time we take charge of our own life and lead it, independent of judgments of other people. To know more about yourself, follow these three simple steps:

Step 1: Create a list of activities that you will do, if you know death will come calling tomorrow

Step 2: Create a list of activities that you will do, if you know death will come calling next week

Step 3: Create a list of activities that you will do, if death comes calling next year

See the patterns across these three lists. They will point to priorities in your life and provide potential clues to your passions. Make a master list of these three lists and pursue them, independent of what others think about you; independent of risks that you have to take. You will live a much better life than 99% of the people in this world.

Believe me, when Death comes calling, we wake up to live a better life.

Does Performance matter?

Recent news has caught my attention and I decided to take a detour from ‘Innovation’ theme to write on it. It’s the news of Vikram Pandit resigning (or being fired) as CEO of Citibank. The fact that the news was broken on the day the firm delivered excellent results and beat market estimates makes it even more puzzling. But is there a reason to be puzzled? Does performance directly results in success? These are the questions that I’d like to address in this blog.

How many times have we seen someone at a higher level (let’s call him Raj) and wondered how did he end up there? We thought the bosses did not make the right decision or Raj flattered the bosses (or got lucky) to get the promotion. In all these thoughts, we always question bosses judgment or conclude that Raj is undeserving of the promotion. Here is where we make the mistake. We do not look to see what aspects of Raj have earned him the promotion because we are too narrowly focused on performance. As we go higher in the organization, performance is just one of the areas (Infact, social research exists that shows weak link between performance and success).

Let’s examine Vikram Pandit’s case a little bit more. Vikram Pandit has become CEO of Citibank in 2007, at a time when the bank was in dire straits. He worked through the difficult periods to turnaround the bank. He worked for a $1 per annum salary with no bonus for a period of two years. Under his leadership, the bank’s performance turned around and it posted five consecutive quarters of profits. Citibank’s Q3 2012 results beat market expectations and confirmed to one and all that finally Citibank is on a solid ground. He received congratulatory messages from one and all. But when he walked into Chairman’s office that evening, he was put in a situation where he had to resign.

If you look purely at performance, Vikram Pandit had one of the best runs with the bank. He successfully steered the bank through one of its most difficult periods, repaid $45 billion federal lifeline, rebuilt capital and focused on the growth of the bank. However, he could not build a strong base with the board. Warning bells should have rung when Michael O’Neill has become the chairman of the Bank in 2009. Michael O’Neill has been in the running for CEO of Citibank but lost the position to Vikram Pandit. When Michael became the chairman, Vikram Pandit should have focused on building stronger relationships with other board members. Earlier this year, Fed rejected Citibank’s proposal to buy back shares and Michael O’Neill took advantage of this opportunity to influence board members that Vikram Pandit is not right for the CEO role. Pandit’s inability to build relationship with board members and Fed has resulted in his losing the top job of the bank.

Fundamentally, many of us assume that the world that we are living in is fair and therefore if we do a good job, things will automatically happen to us. This is driven by our inherent need for predictability as it results in a ‘controllable’ world. Unpredictability worries us and therefore it is safe to assume that world is a fair place. In order to succeed, it is important take ‘control’ of the world as against operating in a ‘controllable’ world. It is also important to lose the idea that performance itself is enough for success (case in point – Vikram Pandit).

To attain success, it is important for Leaders to focus on the following areas (in addition to performance):

Visibility – It is important to be noticed and visible. Other things being equal, people prefer and choose what is familiar to them and what they have experienced before. This is common across cultures. Repeated exposure increases positive effect and reduces negative feelings. Familiarity also reduces uncertainty and people tend to prefer whom they know. Visibility also ensures that you occupy a higher mindshare with key stakeholders.

Build Relationships – It is important to build relationships that go beyond transactions. Relationships can only be built over time and hence it is important to invest time and energy proactively. While it is important to build relationships with those in power, it is equally important (if not more) to build them with those people who could get into power positions. Like a football game, yield will always be better if you are in position where the ball can potentially arrive as against chasing the ball in its current position. Relationships with those who could get into power would yield better results.

Influencing – Influencing skills are critical for success and it is even more important to influence the way your performance will be measured. It is important to acknowledge that we are not strong in all areas and no one can perform equally well in all aspects of their work. It is important to influence your job performance amongst those dimensions that favor your strengths and continuously highlight those areas. Marketing is an essential skill that we need to develop. It is important to market yourself on the dimensions that play to your strengths. If marketing is not your strength, build relationships with those who are good at it and leverage them to market yourself.

Manage your superiors – At the end of the day, Boss is important and we have to learn to manage him/her. Remember what is important to your Boss. Performance has many dimensions and once again, it is important to ask your Boss about dimensions that are important to him/her. Do not assume. Ask them what aspects of the job they think are critical and how they see what you ought to be doing. Note these down and compare these with your strengths/dimensions of performance that you can do well. If there is a mismatch, you know you have to influence. At the same time, ensure that the dimensions that are important for Boss (and those you are not extremely strong on) are well managed. Ask your Boss for advice and assistance (most of us assume that asking Boss for advice or assistance is seen as weakness by them). In fact, it still conveys your competence and command of the situation while helping build a stronger relationship with your boss.

Performance is important but is not sufficient to result in success. It is important to work on the above aspects to result in success. In addition to the above, you need to demonstrate following traits to be successful: Ambition, Energy, Focus (on activities that play to your strengths), Self-knowledge (knowledge about oneself) and a reflective mindset, Confidence (and ability to project self-assurance), ability to read others (and empathize with their point of view) and capacity to tolerate conflict.

If only Vikram Pandit focused on building better relationships with Board members and Federal Bank; changed the dimensions of his work to strengths he brings to the job and read the others better (the intentions of the chairman), he may still have been the CEO of Citibank. Now, was that a fair decision by the Board? Who said the world is fair? What about you? Are you geared up to be successful in this ‘unfair’ world? What aspects do you need to focus on?

Innovation - Program or Culture?

Innovation is critical to success of enterprises in current world. However, many companies struggle with Innovation. Why? Should Innovation be driven as a program or culture? How do we make it happen?

Companies always used to position themselves to be extremely good in one of the areas of Cost, Product or Customer Experience; and be on parity on the other two. However, the world has changed dramatically over the last 4 years (after the collapse of 2007/2008). Today, Companies have mastered the art of Cost effectiveness. It is no more an option but a need. Companies across the board are tending to achieve the position of cost leadership. Companies are increasingly valuing the importance of customer experience in the current world. Hence, across the board, they are implementing programs to quickly move up the customer experience value. Some of the companies are taking advantage of technology to leapfrog on the customer experience. As for Product, the amount of time it takes for a competitor to emulate a function/feature is shortening dramatically (Patenting used to be a way for companies to protect revenues but companies have mastered the art of working around patenting. A regulation whose aim is to protect the interests of a company that innovated has failed to meet its objective in the way it is being administered – more on this at a different time).

Given the above scenario, the only way a company can stay ahead of the game is through Innovation. It has to innovate across all the dimensions of Cost, Customer Experience and Product to lead in the market and for that fact, even to survive.

How can a company be successful at Innovation? Unfortunately, in most Organizations, Innovation is run as a program. We usually assign a Leader who is responsible for Innovation in the organization and they roll out programs after programs, launch communications, and announce rewards to encourage Innovation. This kind of approach usually leads to failure. The only way Innovation can be successful is if we are able to imbibe it in the culture. Innovation cannot be owned by a group or a leader but has to permeate across the organization where every employee takes responsibility for it (not by goals but through ownership). I am not de-riding the importance of Leaders on Innovation – we definitely need Leaders to actively participate in Innovation (and this would happen once it is part of culture). We also need dedicated Leaders who can support the Innovation process by incubating ideas and helping to bring them to fruition by assigning necessary resources (this is a big need in large organizations). However, Innovation cannot be just owned as a program by a leader. That will not work.

Before we proceed, let us look at few examples of companies that are successful at Innovation. Some of the world-class companies like 3M, P&G, Apple, Samsung, Google, IBM, Amazon have made Innovation as culture and have been successful for many years.

Following are few examples of Indian companies that have exhibited Innovation:

Narayana Hrudayalaya: Dr. Shetty of Narayana Hrudayala is bringing Walmart approach to healthcare. His model of taking advantage of economies of scale to keep the surgery costs low is making the hospital profitable while doing social good by delivering quality healthcare at lower costs to patients. Dr. Shetty achieved this, not by product innovation but through process innovation. He changed the model of compensation of doctors (by paying fixed compensation as against per-surgery compensation – still being market competitive but getting doctors to do more number of surgeries per day and excluding non-surgical activities from doctors’ responsibilities). Dr. Shetty offers concessional rates to extreme poor by charging relatively higher rates to people who can afford them. They do a daily P&L that gives them a view of the profitability per surgery and overall profitability on a daily basis. Narayana Hrudayala is now expanding across India to provide high quality low cost healthcare to patients across India.

RedBus: Red Bus has originated with personal experience of its founder Phanindra Sharma who had to run across multiple operators to catch a bus home. He thought of creating an integrated platform that could bring together all bus operators on a single platform that helps passengers track seat availability in real time from multiple operators, purchase tickets and post ratings. In order to achieve this vision, they had to work through the challenges of working closely with bus operators (many, who are illiterate) to use computers and keep costs extremely low so that they can make a margin on Rs. 500 ticket. To get operators onto the platform, they conceived the business model of standard commissions as against the prevalent commissions per ticket (counter-intuitive). To keep costs low, they used open source technology for call center and moved all their IT to cloud computing and saved 40% of costs. This has helped RedBus organize an unorganized sector and bring better customer experience to passengers while increasing profitability to both operators and to themselves. Now, they are planning to expand at a national level and potentially look at going global.

Tata Nano: Tata Nano car is conceived by Ratan Tata. He wanted his company, Tata Motors to create car under Rs. 1 lakh cost that would help lower middle class to buy a car and travel comfortably with their family. This vision of their Chairman has galvanized Tata Motors organization and they partnered with suppliers, manufacturing and distribution channels to keep costs low so that they could hit the Rs. 1 lakh target. This has led to significant innovation in many parts of the car to build a quality product at lower cost. Many a times, we have seen how a vision of the leader galvanizes an organization and lead to Innovation. Another example of similar nature is how a country (USA) could be galvanized on Innovation to make the wish (command) of the President (JFK) when he proclaimed that they would land a man on the moon by end of the decade.

How do we permeate this innovation across Organizations? How can we imbibe it as culture? In next set of articles, we will discuss how Design Thinking can be leveraged as a model to imbibe innovation in the organization. We will also discuss what we can do to instill creativity into Organization that can fuel ideas.

Meanwhile, what stories of innovation have you seen successful? What attributes of organization are supporting the Innovation? If you are CEO and need to instill innovation as a culture, what would you do?

P.S.: My writing has become erratic due to my travel and work schedules. I feel bad that it took me more than a month to get back to my blog. I plan to get back on schedule (once every 2 weeks) immediately.

Tomorrows Leader - Part 2

VUCA (Volatile, Uncertainty, Complex and Ambiguous) world is fast emerging and we can already see many indications of it in the present. We need to address the VUCA world through our own VUCA – Vision, Understanding, Clarity and Agility. Bob Johansen’s 10 Leadership skills for a Leader to be successful in VUCA world are as follows: Maker Instinct, Clarity, Dilemma flipping, Immersive Learning ability, Bio-Empathy, Constructive Depolarizing, Quiet Transparency, Rapid Prototyping, Smart Mob Organizing, and Commons Creating.

We covered the first five of these Leadership skills in the last article. Let us dive into the remaining five Leadership skills. These points are covered at a high level due to paucity of space. However, I am available in person, for any detailed discussions.

Constructive Depolarizing: The VUCA world will be a polarized world. Many people will be so confused by the VUCA world that they will demand simple solutions – even when there is no simplicity and no solution. Constructive Depolarizing is the ability to calm tense situations where differences dominate and communication has broken down – bringing people from divergent cultures toward constructive engagement. Polarization could lead to conflict between groups, as there is no right way and it is difficult to convince people on data, as data would not exist (or too much data to make any sense). In such situations, it is imperative for Leaders to calm the situation (addressing the tense environment and conflict). They should ensure that they do not take any sides, empathize with people involved and slowly work with these groups to build a constructive dialogue that could move things forward. This is very different than the way a Leader operates today where he/she could take positions and convince people on the rationale. In a Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous world, such rationale may not work. Leaders who are gifted with skill for constructive depolarizing are able to look beyond differences and identify the qualities that bring communities together.

Quite Transparency: Quiet transparency is the ability to be open and authentic about what matters to you – without advertising yourself. We are coming to the end of rock-star leadership, where leaders are self-advertising and self-centered. In VUCA world, we need leaders who are strong and confident but do not crave for celebrity status. We need Leaders who do the right things, be transparent about it and yet do not self-advertise. In today’s world of social media, people will learn about you even if you do not advertise yourself. Tomorrows preferred Leadership style would be a strong, confident yet humble leader.

Rapid Prototyping: Ability to create quickly early versions of innovations              , with the expectation that later success will require early failures. Rapid prototyping is the ability to fail early, fail often, and fail cheaply. With the uncertainty of the VUCA world, the only way to make the future is rapid prototype your way toward it. When you start on a new project, learn to build prototypes on first day. Future designs will be based on prototypes (Design thinking propagates rapid prototyping – a concept that I’ll cover in a future blog). And as we progress on the project and with discussions from various communities, the design/prototype will evolve to emerge into a better product/outcome. If we follow the traditional approach, failure rate would be high and such failures would be costly to organizations.

Smart mob organizing: Ability to exploit your inner drive to build and grow things, as well as connect with others in the making. The idea of aggregating groups of people for a cause, change or movement and aggregating through social media or multiple media is called Smart Mob organizing. In VUCA world, Leader should be able to tap into the potential of the larger number of people by leveraging them through social media towards a common goal. We already see many examples of the role of social media in smart mob organizing. Few examples are Arab uprising and Occupy Wallstreet – both have drawn significant attention across the world and the former having a significant impact on the governments across Middle East. Key aspect is the speed at which both the information and movement spread across geographies – enabling to build the momentum and spreading the message/updates.

Commons Creating: Commons Creating is the ultimate leadership skill in VUCA world. Where Smart Mobs tend to be ad-hoc, Commons are sustainable over a period of time. It is the ability of Leader to bring disparate people/groups/communities to work together to create a shared asset that is profitable, productive and socially constructive. Few examples of Commons Creating are Eric Whitacre’s virtual choir, Innovation through crowdsourcing and buying power through GroupOn. Let us examine these a little more:

Eric Whitacre is an American Grammy award winning composer and conductor. One day, he received a link from his friend that has a YouTube video. This video was recorded by a fan of Eric Whitacre, singing a composition of his and dedicating the song/video to him. This threw up a light bulb for Eric and he decided to have a virtual choir sing his composition. He uploaded a silent (and subsequently with piano music) and asked people across the world to upload their videos, singing to his orchestration. With the number of videos that have been submitted, he could create a virtual choir with 185 singers featuring 12 countries. He got ambitious and moved on to virtual choir 2.0 project and this time, it featured 2000+ voices from 58 countries; and recently released virtual choir 3.0 (in April 2012) featured 2945 people from 73 different countries. This virtual choir has enabled people from different countries/races/age groups/religions come together to sing as one single group and provided them an opportunity to connect with each other. This platform also has given rise to the hopes of many people who wanted to be a singer but could not get an opportunity. You could watch Choir 3.0 – ‘Water Night’ on YouTube at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3rRaL-Czxw

Groupon is a deal-of-the-day website that features discounted gift certificates usable at local or national companies in United States, Europe, Asia and South America. It was launched in 2008 with first market in Chicago. Groupon leverages the power of web to bring together disparate consumers to amalgamate into a buying power that could negotiate with vendors. The business model creates a win-win-win situation – win for the buyer as they are able to get the deal at a great discount; win for the vendor as it guarantees the quantum of customers before the deal becomes active (and hence saving on upfront marketing costs) and finally to Groupon who makes money in the process. This would not have been possible without the power of web. Once again, a classic example of Commons Creating, - bringing together disparate parties towards a profitable/productive motive.

It is important for Leaders to build on these Leadership skills to be successful in VUCA world. However, what does it take to build these skills? What changes in the mindset have to be made? How would you negotiate this journey?

Tomorrows Leader - Part 1

In the last article, we have seen that, to be successful in VUCA (Volatile, Uncertainty, Complex and Ambiguous) world, we need to bring in our own VUCA – Vision, Understanding, Clarity and Agility. In this article, we will look at 10 Leadership skills that would be required in the Leaders of tomorrow, as defined by Bob Johansen from Institute for the Future. In the next article, we will cover how to develop these leadership skills.

Bob Johansen describes the 10 leadership skills, moving from basic, Maker Instinct (tapping into creativity of each individual) to the higher order, Commons Creating (not just to win for yourself but to win for others, ability to create social assets and shared assets). It would be difficult to cover each of the Leadership skill at greater detail (due to constraint of real estate). I’ll cover the broad aspects of the Leadership skills out here and will be available in person to discuss any specific skill at greater detail.

Bob Johansen’s 10 Leadership skills are as follows: Maker Instinct, Clarity, Dilemma Flipping, Immersive Learning ability, Bio-Empathy, Constructive Depolarizing, Quiet Transparency, Rapid Prototyping, Smart Mob Organizing, and Commons Creating. These skills are very different from typical Leadership skills that we are exposed to. I will cover how we can develop these skills in a future article.

In view of the space, these skills will be addressed in two parts. Part 1 will cover the first five leadership skills and part 2 (to be published next week) will cover the next five leadership skills.

Let us dive into these skills:

Maker Instinct: Ability to exploit your inner drive to build and grow things, as well as connect with others in the making. Each one of us has an inner instinct of a maker, creator that we were not able to tap into. However, in the future world, the new media will allow the maker/creator instinct to flourish. The word ‘consumer’ would be lost as everyone would like to personalize the products/services that are available in the market. Hence, Leader of tomorrow needs to not only nurture her maker instinct but also that of others around her and of customers. She needs to be able to bring together the community of maker instincts (source of Innovation) to create a larger change in the world.

Clarity: Ability to see through messes and contradictions to a future that others cannot yet see. Clarity has always been important for Leaders but has never been as difficult as in VUCA world. Having clarity in VUCA world means that being clear about where you are going but very flexible on how you get there (This is called Commander’s intent in military). It is different from certainty. Certainty is brittle in VUCA world as we need to deal with unexpected events all the time. Clarity is about knowing what you do not know. It is about taking a leap of faith and being flexible. Clarity is about being able to communicate your intent/direction in a simplistic manner (without being simple) while allowing your team the flexibility to get there.

Dilemma Flipping: Ability to turn a dilemma – which unlike problems, cannot be solved – into advantages and opportunities. VUCA world will be loaded with dilemmas – problems that cannot be solved and that will not go away. Leaders must be able to engage with dilemmas and learn how to win – even if they cannot solve. They should be able to turn dilemmas into opportunity to win. Best Leaders usually delegate problem-solving to others but save dilemmas for themselves. They must learn to thrive in the space between judging too soon (classic mistake of a problem-solver) and deciding too late (classis mistake of the academic).

We can understand dilemma flipping through the following example better. Up to one third of Bangladesh is flooded annually in the worst of monsoon seasons, and environmental reports are projecting that water levels will only keep rising in many parts of the country. Rising water levels prevent many children from attending school – resulting in increased dropout rates. Dilemma is about how to increase the attendance to schools thus increasing the education level of the children. Problem of flooding is not going to go away in Bangladesh. Hence, Architect Mohammed Rizwan flipped the dilemma into an opportunity and decided that if children cannot go to schools during the floods, school would come to them. Working with local boat builders, he modified the boats to incorporate social panels, electricity, and flexible spaces. The first school set afloat in 2002, and today, there are over 50 floating schools that operate and serve 90,000 families. A classic example of how to look at a situation, assess it and turn on its head to create an opportunity.

Immersive Learning Ability: Ability to immerse yourself in unfamiliar environments, to learn from them in a first-person way. Gaming and Immersive Learning would be the new learning pedagogy of the VUCA world. Leaders cannot learn through the regular approaches of class room training. They need to immerse themselves in new situations/simulations; they need to engage with VUCA world to learn from it. This could be done through gaming or by real life experience of traveling, living abroad or getting into situations that would make them real uncomfortable and learning from such experiences in a first-person way. Incidentally, younger generation is an expert in immersive learning ability because of the large amount of time spent by them playing games (in virtual world). According to Dr. Jane McGonigal, world-renowned game designer, average person would have spent 10,000 hours playing video games by the time they are 21 years old. Hence, their ability to adapt to a new environment or rapid changes is much better than us.

Bio-Empathy: Ability to see from nature’s point of view; to understand, respect and learn from nature’s patterns. To be successful in VUCA world, it is important to learn and understand from nature and apply them to our leadership skills. In VUCA world, teams’ achievement trumps individual achievement. A Leader has to take holistic approach of her team by focusing on health, wellness and well-being of the team. Typical metaphors used in Leadership today are ‘foundation’, ‘pillars’, ‘levers’ – all derived from engineering. However, future metaphors (that will be successful in VUCA world) would need to be about ‘seeding’, ‘nurturing’, ‘ecology’ – all coming from nature and Biology. Last few decades have been ruled by Engineers. Future would be heavily influenced by Biology and Life Sciences. As a Leader in VUCA world, it is important to understand that bio-empathy is at the core of sound decision making. Leaders with strong sense of bio-empathy are self-aware and conscious of the decisions they are making. They are able to succeed by aligning the internal purpose and motivations of their team members with the larger objective that need to be achieved.

We will continue the next five skills in Part 2. Imagine the world getting more volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous – what skills do you think you need to be successful in such a world?

The World of Tomorrow

Future – People are always intrigued by it and would love to know more about it. This can be seen by the demand for horoscopes in newspapers or at the tarot card reader counter at a fair. In our entire endeavor to know more about future, we always bank upon others to tell us about it. We are more interested in a tarot reader predicting how our health or career would be in the future, than determining it ourselves. Can we make our own future?

I have been doing my own research about how future world would be and what Leadership skills are required to be successful in the future. As part of my research, I came across a company, “Institute for the Future” that creates 10 year forecasts on how the world will be. Dr. Bob Johansen, Distinguished Fellow at the Institute for the Future, along with John Ryan, President of CCL (Creative Center of Leadership)  has written a book “Leaders make the Future” and discussed the Leadership skills that are required in tomorrow’s Leaders. I’d like to share my learning with you. I’ll present this in 3 part series. This blog focuses on the nature of the world that we live in (inspired by the work done by Dr. Bob Johansen). Part 2 would focus on sharing 10 leadership skills for the future as listed by Dr. Bob Johansen. Part 3 would be my perspectives on what we should be doing today to equip ourselves to scale up to these leadership skills.

We are living in a VUCA world. VUCA is a term coined at the US Army War College, which is a graduate school for Generals-to-be in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. VUCA stands for Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguous and this is how the US army college describes the current world for which it must prepare the military leaders. It is no different for Organizations and Leaders. Let us look at these a little more in detail:

·         Volatility – We are living in a world that is changing at a rapid pace. Nature and dynamics of these changes along with the speed of change is creating volatility in the world.

·         Uncertainty – There is lack of predictability and high possibility for surprise. There is limited sense of awareness and understanding of issues and events happening around us. We are operating in a world where we are unclear about present situation and future outcomes.

·         Complexity – With multiple forces at play, there is constant chaos and confusion that surround an organization. A Leader is faced with multiplicity of decision factors. Due to the rapid change in the world, there are an increasing number of forces that are outside the control of the Leader that are influencing his/her world.

·         Ambiguous – There is lack of clarity about meaning of an event. With constant change, there is confusion about the reality. What is real today may not be tomorrow. There is high potential for misreading of the situations. It is very difficult to predict cause-and-effect relationship as with so much change, cause and effect could always be confusing.

Rapid technological changes, increasing global interconnections, climate change, population growth, global age and income disparities are combining to create a highly volatile and unpredictable terrain. In the VUCA world, one has to be prepared to respond to low-probability but high-impact events caused by extreme weather conditions (example – ash clouds disrupting aviation sector in Europe, Tsunami significantly impacting Japanese economy and supply chain of the world), rapid political shifts (example – Stalemate in Indian political scenario and lack of progress on reforms; constant change in stance of Samajwadi party on FDI in retail; Recent elections in Greece and threatening impact on European economy), or major infrastructure failures. Organizations and Leaders must accept uncertainty as inevitable.

We are moving from a world of problems (which demanded speed, analysis and elimination of uncertainty to solve) to a world of dilemmas (which demand patience, sense-making and an engagement with uncertainty). We are faced with dilemmas that are unsolvable, complex and often messy, threatening, confusing and laden with puzzling choices. These require different leadership attributes to address them. Leaders must learn to thrive in the space between judging too soon (classic mistake of the problem-solver) and deciding too late (classic mistake of the academic).

However, I’d agree with Bob Johansen that VUCA is a state of mind. While a Leader could be confused with the Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguous, another Leader could make the future by seeing a new VUCA (Vision, Understanding, Clarity and Agility). Let us look at these in more particular:

·         Vision – From Volatility around us, a Leader could create a vision. It is an intent that seeks to CREATE the future. The Leader is not following the directions of the forecast but is willing to create his/her own future. She has a clear intent, clear direction for her actions.

·         Understanding – Leader has to stop, look and listen. In the face of uncertainty, listening and understanding can help Leader discover new ways of thinking and acting.

·         Clarity – Leader has to make sense of the chaos. The VUCA world rewards clarity because people are so confused that they grasp anything that helps them make sense out of chaos.

·         Agility – With rapid change around us, Leaders cannot make multi-year plan and rest. With changing world, Leader has to be agile. She has to leverage her networks to be able to get things done quickly as against depending upon hierarchies. VUCA world severely punishes the rigidity and brittleness of hierarchies.

Hence, while VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguous) world could be threatening, at the same time, it gives Leaders opportunities to thrive in it through the new VUCA (Vision, Understanding, Clarity and Agility). Leaders cannot predict the future but they must make sense of it in order to thrive. That’s the ultimate paradox of Leaders.

As a Leader, you have the ability to make your own world of tomorrow. The question is not how capable you are to the task, as given the orientation is towards the future, all of us are equally capable. The question is how willing are you to the task? How willing are you to make your own future? As Alvin Toffler said “The illiterate of 21^st century will not be those who cannot read & write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn”

Reboot the Manager

The world has changed dramatically over last many decades. However, the role of the manager has remained constant since the industrial revolution. What should be the role of the manager in the new world? Do we need a manager in the first place? What value does a manager bring to the team?

Role, managers are playing today predates back to the command and control mode (primarily derived from Military). In that model, Officer makes all the decisions and gives command to his troops. When that model was brought into the Organizations, Managers made the requisite decisions as they had better understanding of the underlying work. All associates performed similar work. While people were part of the teams, machines (during manufacturing era) were the critical resources. Manager was critical for information flow. He ensured that the requisite information flowed in all directions (from top to down and vice versa). Managers job was primarily as a control – ensure that all the rules were followed; no risks were taken and all procedures complied with. He directed the associates on allocation of work (deciding who does what). He derived significant power because of his position (as he is the primary face of the company to the associates) and expertise (as he knows more about work than any of the associates – atleast deemed that way).

Today, the world has changed. We are in service economy and people (not machines) are the critical resources. Knowledge of the people is critical for the success of the Organizations. Today, associates know more about their work than their managers and hence are the best people to make decisions. The work is so diverse in nature that there cannot be standard procedures to comply with. Today, there is abundance of information (as against lack of it) and for all practical purposes, a CEO can directly email an associate on the floor with a question and get response within minutes. We have sophisticated workflow and MIS (Management Information Systems) that provides an immediate update on the status of work.

However, the role of the Manager has not evolved. Unfortunately, many still tend to operate in the command and control model though the underlying reality has changed. They tend to draw power from their position (without the underlying expertise) and try to exert control on the associates using the power. Associates tend to resist such power usage and this leads to unhealthy conflict amongst the teams and loss of respect for the Manager.

A recent Wall Street Journal article talks about example of an organization that is operating without bosses (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303379204577474953586383604.html) - very radical approach. I think the idea has merit and could be tried in few areas. However, it may not be possible to do so in all spheres of work (and is radical enough that there would be resistance to even accepting such a way is possible). However, I think time has come to question the traditional role of the manager and re-look at what is expected out of her today. In my mind, role of the manager has to dramatically change on the following dimensions:

Control to Facilitator:  Managers should come to terms with the fact that they are not the most knowledgeable people on the team. The associates who perform the work are more aware of the situations and have the necessary expertise to address them. Hence, Manager should move to the role of a Facilitator who facilitates the decisions as against the one making them.

Adherence to Disruptive: In the earlier days, compliance to rules and adherence to procedures is gold standard. However, with the constant change, focus is shifting to disruptive innovation. This would mean that a Manager has to encourage associates to go out of comfort zone and experiment. They should break the rules (try out new approaches). She should encourage associates to take risks and reward them for it (even if that action results in failure). She should be comfortable in dealing with ambiguity (as she may have to support initiatives/plans/actions that may not have a determined outcome but just a possibility). Manager also has to keep connecting the larger organizational context to the work done by the associates so that they can channelize their innovation efforts in the right direction.

Short term to Long Term: Managers in today’s world cannot operate just by focusing on short term. They should be able to balance both short term and long term objectives. Hence, while today’s results are being achieved, they should constantly focus on the implications of the long term (given the changing nature of the world). In order to do so, they should keep abreast of what is changing in the external world and how it impacts their operations.

Manage to Coach: Managers have to transform themselves as coaches. Today, associates do not like to be directed. They like to be engaged and constantly challenged. The peanut butter approach also does not work. They should focus on each of the individuals on the team. Hence, as a Coach, she has to understand the strengths of each of her team members and see how she can leverage these strengths for success of the team. She should also channelize the efforts/energy of the associate to further build on their strengths. As a Coach, she should also understand that the motives/drivers of each of the associate can be different and has to adapt her approach accordingly.

In my mind, a Manager has to first change on these four dimensions to evolve her role to the needs of the modern world. This requires a significant change in her mindset. Her value to the team does not come from her expertise or position but how she could facilitate the team for better success. Do I think we need Managers in today’s world? Yes but in the role of Coaches as against pure managers. What do you think? How do you think Managers have to change to adapt to the new world?

Death of an Expert?

In this fast paced, ever changing world, who would make a good Leader? What is valued most? Is experience in a specific field (that we call Expertise) relevant? What traits would position a Leader to be successful in the future?

World is changing at a very rapid pace. Gone are the days when the changes were cyclical in nature. Today, we are faced with structural changes most of the time. There was a time when an average product life cycle was five years and a business model used to be relevant for atleast 18-20 years. Today, a product is outdated as soon as it hits production and a business model needs to be reinvented every three to five years (or maybe sooner depending on the nature of business). To stay ahead in the race, every company is looking to cannibalize their own products (Example being Samsung with a clearly focused tagline – “What’s Next?”. This tagline has driven the innovation in the company with Samsung launching new models even before the current ones completely percolate into all the markets).

Today, we are seeing three major trends in the world:

Transcending industries: Boundaries between industries are being erased. A company is transcending multiple industries and is foraying into multiple products by leveraging their core strengths. Example being Apple - In which industry do we say Apple is operating in? They are a hardware company, software (within Software, they have an Operating system, Office software, Apple maps, apps), Cloud computing, Music distribution, Telecommunications, Consumer electronics and are foraying into Television with soon to be launched Apple TV (beyond the current version that they have). Another way to think about it is to ask who is a competitor for Apple? We would end up listing multiple companies across multiple industries.

Surprise competition: Competition could be coming in from anywhere and any source. It is not always from a direct competitor. Did camera companies ever expect to see competition from mobile companies? Today, many people opt for camera phones as against buying a separate camera resulting in severe pressure on revenues of camera companies. Similarly, Google search is coming under pressure from Apple’s Siri voice based search; Call center companies are under pressure because of advent of social media that is redefining customer contact/experience; most recently, within India, many of the major bookstores are facing stiff competition from Flipkart (similar to Amazon story); movie industry coming under pressure from television/digital cable; single screens from multiplexes and so on. Could Airtel Money be a competitor for credit cards? (Going back to the previous point of transcending industries – is Airtel a mobile company or a financial company?)

Globalization: Globalization led to huge number of opportunities and challenges at the same time. While it had introduced many new markets and multiple cost bases, it brought in challenges like complexity of dealing with multiple currencies (foreign exchange risk), multiple regulations & regulators, multiple cultures & dealing with different talent/global teams; different customer tastes etc.

In such a scenario, who would be best to lead, say, a telecom company? A Leader with thirty years of experience in the telecommunications industry or one who has traits to be successful in a changing environment? What value is experience, when today telecommunications companies have more revenue from data based services as against voice calls? Average age of the consumer much lower and consumer preferences changing at a very rapid pace?

I believe following traits would be critical for a leader to be successful in the future:

Learning ability: It is critical for Leader to continuously learn from diverse areas and fields. As the opportunities are spread across businesses/industries, Leader has to be constantly open to learning – about new markets; new technologies; business models; cultures; languages (if required); impact of regulations/political changes; new risks etc. Learning could occur from different sources – Reading, Networking, Social media; Videos (Youtube is a great source); Podcasts etc.

Adaptability: With so much of change, Leaders have to constantly adapt and embrace change. Gone are the days, where a Leader puts together 5 year plan and sticks to it. Today, even a yearly plan has to be adapted to changing environment. Hence, embracing change becomes critical to the success of the Leader. This requires the Leader to be willing to change and then to lead the rest of the organization through change management.

Business Savvy: Every Leader has to understand the underlying business model of her business thoroughly and be able to assess the impact of changes occurring in external environment to her business. Keeping the financial goals in mind, she should be able to identify the requisite capabilities she has to build in the Organization. Most important aspect though is in identifying the impact based on external changes. More often than not, this gets missed until very late.

Develop Talent: Biggest differentiator for companies today is the talent they have in the Organization. With innovation happening at a rapid pace, any other value differentiator gets lost very quickly. However, the talent within the organization could make a difference to the success or failure of the company. Hence, Leader who is genuinely interested in the development of people; puts together coaching programs and builds the requisite capabilities would lead her organization to success.

Risk taking: Leader cannot wait for the right opportunity to push forward his business. He has to take risks and create opportunities. While some risks may pay off, others may not. That’s ok. A Leader who takes risks has higher probability of success than a Leader who does not.

I strongly believe that the above traits are more critical for the Leader to be successful than experience in a specific field. It is always great if we can get an individual who has immense experience and has the requisite traits. But if we have to choose one, I choose the required Leadership traits over relevant experience/expertise. What do you think?

Thinking Big - Final Chapter

This is the final article in the series of Thinking Big. In order to understand a concept, it is not just important to know what it is but also to know what it is NOT. While the first two articles explored the facets and examples of Thinking Big, today, we will explore what is NOT Thinking Big. That’s the tricky part. How could we explain what is not thinking Big? While I raked my brain on how to do that, I thought I’d look at missed opportunities as they could have turned things around for the company or would have made it BIG. There is a difference between missed opportunity and failure. Failure is where you have taken risk but it has not paid off. In my mind, that’s good - there is intent of risk that has been exhibited and even if the result is not in line with the expectation, there are enough lessons from that experience that could be leveraged to move forward. However, missed opportunity is where a company has let go of an opportunity without betting on it. I’d like to acknowledge here that we are all smart hindsight but making that decision would have been difficult for the constituents. Having said that, there is always ‘What if’ associated here. Examples of missed opportunities:

Yahoo: Yahoo is currently struggling as a company with multiple changes of CEOs and of strategic directions. However, it had multiple opportunities it missed as a company to make it big. I’d like to highlight two of them. First one is about the opportunity for Yahoo to buy Google.  Having passed over the opportunity of taking over Google search engine when it was initially offered by Larry Page and Sergey Bin, Yahoo tried another bid in summer of 2002. Google was not listed at that time and its revenue was $240 million. Terry Semel, Yahoo CEO at that time approached Larry Page and Sergey Bin to take over Google. Larry and Serge stated their price as $3 billion but mentioned they were not interested to sell. Terry’s team indicated that Google was worth $5 billion and they should push hard. However, Terry Semel disagreed and moved over to Plan B to acquire their own search engine and search-advertising technology to compete for search based ads. Well, we all know the result. Google subsequently went public and is currently operating with a market cap in excess of $180 billion. Similarly, Yahoo made efforts to buy Youtube but could not push forward on it. Eventually, Google bought Youtube and successfully integrated it into its fold.

Second big opportunity it missed was in 2006 when Yahoo sought to buy Facebook. Yahoo CEO Terry Semel almost shook hands with Mark Zuckerberg to buy Facebook for $1 Billion (this was when Facebook was smaller than Myspace – another social portal that went into oblivion). However, Yahoo underperformed on earnings in 2006 and Semel reduced the price offering to Facebook to $800 million. Zuckerberg turned it down. In a subsequent interview, Terry Semel lamented the missed opportunity and felt that Yahoo should have pushed forward with the deal.

We will never know what would have been the present if only Yahoo leveraged these two opportunities. In both the cases, Yahoo was convinced they were good buys but failed to take the necessary risk to pursue the deal. WHAT IF??

India Story: While talking about missed opportunities, I could not resist myself writing about huge number of missed opportunities by India to really make it big. India shining story has always been that of a great future but of a weak present. Even during early years of this century, we talked about India will be a great destination ten years from now, and after ten years, we still say India will be a great destination ten years from now. Inorder to have a strong growth, it was required for the government to make bold decisions and push for strong reforms, but the government backtracked multiple times to appease political interests. That has stalled India story and today, it is being seen as a potential fallen angel of BRIC countries. WHAT IF we have taken risk and pushed for strong reforms and provided good governance? WHAT IF??

Contrast the above examples with that of James Cameroon. He always thought big and made movies in a large scale. He went to Fox studios and pitched to make Romeo and Juliet story on a sinking ship for $150 million. Fox was skeptical but yet gave in to the demands of James Cameroon since they wanted to build a relationship with him. Result was Titanic that earned more than $2 billion. He came back to Fox in 1996 to pitch for the idea of Avatar with a potential release date in 1999. However, he was not happy with the technology that was available and worked on pre-production and production of this film for a decade, with the film eventually hitting the screens in 2009. It instantly turned into a blockbuster and brought in another $2 billion. Imagine spending more than 10 years of your life in pursuit of a goal. You need to be able to dream big, take risks and have great passion. That’s THINKING BIG.

What does all this mean to you? Are you willing to THINK BIG about your life? Are you willing to bet on yourself and take the required risks? THINKING BIG cannot happen if you are not willing to dream big, take risks and have strong self-belief. This world provides a huge number of opportunities to think and make big however, the number of people who capitalize on such opportunities are very few. Are you one of them?

Thinking Big - Michelangelo and Steve Jobs

In the last article, we discussed what ‘Thinking Big’ is and traits that are required to demonstrate it. Today, we will look at examples of two people who demonstrated thinking big - two people who are impactful and changed the course of the world; two people who left a legacy behind that is/will be remembered over centuries; two people who lived 500 years apart yet are very similar – Michelangelo, an artist and Steve Jobs who considered his work as form of art.

Michelangelo (1475 – 1564) is one of the great artists of the renaissance period. He transcended multiple forms of art – Sculpture, Painting, Architecture, Poet and created masterpieces that the world is in awe of. He is one of the best documented artists of the 16^th century. Two of his best known works – Pieta and David were sculpted before he turned thirty. His other famous works include Painting on ceiling of Sistine Chapel and Last Judgment on the altar wall of Sistine chapel; Sculpting of Madonna of the stairs, Battle of centaurs, Day and Night, Moses, Rebellious slave, Dying slave; and as an architect, architectural design of St Peters Basilica and its famous dome. Steve Jobs (1955 – 2011) life is well chronicled and read by many of us.

Steve Jobs and Michelangelo share many characteristics and their lives are very similar:

·        Michelangelo transcended multiple areas like Sculpting, Painting, Architecture, Engineering and Poetry. Steve Jobs transcended multiple industries like Personal computing, Animation movies, Music, Telecommunication and Tablets

·        Michelangelo and Steve Jobs were considered egotists but they displayed great passion towards their work and created masterpieces (or world-class products)

·        Michelangelo and Steve Jobs demonstrated their flair for big picture thinking while having great attention to detail. Michelangelo products (Pieta, David, Sistine chapel paintings) are marveled both for the concept and their design. Similarly, Apple products are marveled both for their concept (usage) and simplified design

·        Both of them strived for perfection. There are innumerable stories on how Michelangelo broke many of his own sculptures and destroyed paintings as he was not happy with the finished product (while others felt that they were outstanding). Similarly, Steve Jobs delayed multiple product launches as he was not happy with the finished product, few examples being launch of iPad and launch of Apple stores

·        Both have seen major failures in their lives. Michelangelo faced the ire of Florentines when he left Florence during political upheaval but returned back to Florence to take up 40 year old unfinished project. He worked on it for three years and sculpted David to create a masterpiece that symbolizes defense of civil liberties and gave hope to Florentines. Similarly, Steve Jobs has been ousted from Apple (a company he co-founded) but returned to it to make it one of the most valuable companies in the world.

Thinking Big is inherent in Michelangelo and Steve Jobs. To illustrate it better, I’ll take few incidents from their lives and showcase the traits of thinking BIG.

Ø    When Pope Julius II awarded Michelangelo with the commission of painting Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo was taken aback. He was a sculptor and not a painter. However, to the surprise of many, he had taken the commission and negotiated with Pope to change the concept. Instead of painting twelve figures of apostles, as was the original mandate, Michelangelo convinced Pope to allow him to paint episodes from book of Genesis. For five years, Michelangelo worked on this fresco. He had to paint on a wet plaster, lying on a scaffolding seventy feet from the ground, while the water, paint dripped on his face. He fell sick multiple times during that period but never gave up. He painted 300 figures, and at its center nine episodes from book of Genesis, divided into three groups – God’s creation of earth, God’s creation of humankind and their fall from God’s grace. When he unveiled the fresco, it was regarded as a masterpiece and brought in new approach to fresco painting that was followed by many others. Traits exhibited by Michelangelo are Risk taking, Optimism, Perfection, Self-belief

Ø    When Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple, he founded NeXT computer. While his company developed technologically advanced machines, their sales were limited. NeXT ventured into development of operating system (that later became the basis for iOS) and WebObjects (that laid the foundation for Apple store, MobileMe and iTunes store). He also bought Pixar and invested heavily in Toy Story (re-drafted the story board to make it bigger, friendlier). This has laid the foundation to revolutionize animation movies that subsequently saw blockbusters like A Bug’s life, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Finding Nemo, Incredibles, Cars, WALL-E, and Toy Story 3. Steve Jobs talked about this period of life in his Stanford speech. In his own words “The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life. I am pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn’t been fired from Apple. It was awful-tasting medicine but the patient needed it”. Traits exhibited are Contrarian, Risk taking, Optimism, Self-belief

Ø    When he was 23 years old, Michelangelo was given charge of sculpting Pieta (Pity in Italian that shows Virgin Mary holding the dead body of Jesus Christ). Instead of revealing extreme grief, Mary is restrained and her expression is one of resignation. He completed the sculpture before he was 25 years old and people immediately called it a masterpiece. They marveled at intricate details like muscles, veins nerves and facial emotions being depicted in a sculpture. This sculpture is marveled even today, after 500 years. Similarly, when Michelangelo was commissioned for painting Last Judgment on altar wall of Sistine Chapel, he worked on to create a master piece for four years. It was one of the largest paintings of the renaissance period that depicted humanity face to face with salvation. People visit Vatican museum (that includes tour of Sistine chapel) and St Peter’s Basilica even today to see these masterpieces. Traits exhibited are Risk taking, Perfection, Optimism, Self-belief

There are many more such incidents from their lives. Michelangelo and Steve Jobs demonstrated Contrarian, Risk taking, Optimism, Perfection and Self-belief throughout their life. This has set them apart from the rest. They are great people that left a wonderful legacy behind for us to follow. Thinking Big would set us apart from the rest and enables success in our lives. My perspective is best embodied by the following lyrics from late 1990s ‘Think Different’ campaign of Apple:

“Here’s to the Crazy Ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes...
The ones who see things differently
they’re not fond of rules
and they have no respect for the status quo.
You can quote them, disagree with them,
disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them;
about the only thing that you can’t do is ignore them…
Because they change things…
They invent, they imagine, they heal, they explore, they create, they inspire.
They push the human race forward.
Maybe they have to be crazy.
How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
Or, sit in silence and hear a song that hasn’t been written?
Or, gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world,
are the ones who do.”

Thinking Big

I just returned from a 2 week vacation of Paris & Italy (Venice, Florence and Rome) and I am Inspired. That’s the last thing I expected from a vacation. But, after seeing some of the wonders of the world and works of great people, there was no way I could not be inspired. Eiffel Tower, Leaning tower of Pisa, Pantheon, Coliseum, Mona Lisa, Pieta, Last Judgment, and St Peter’s Basilica, and many other Frescos, Paintings, Sculptures, architecture left me wondering about the thought process of the people behind these achievements. One common theme that kept coming back to me as I went from one place to another was about thinking big. None of these could have been achieved without Thinking Big.

Imagine conceptualizing and executing Coliseum that can accommodate fifty thousand people, about two thousand years ago when concepts like gravitational force, fulcrum, motion and other science concepts were not even in place. Building a structure that is 1,050 feet tall as an entrance archway to the world fair in 1889 knowing that it would be temporary (Eiffel tower); Working for four years on a single piece of fresco (which is not your primary skill and are not known for it) that has become a master piece (Last Judgment in Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo) are all examples of thinking big.

 Inspired by this visit, I’d like to write series of blogs on thinking big. While today’s blog is focused on some of the key traits of thinking big, over next few weeks, I’d like to introduce people like Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Raphael, and many others on how they thought big. This is more about my own learning as I believe the best way to learn is through sharing the knowledge.

Thinking Big is about setting goals that are way beyond the current realm of possibilities and striving towards achieving them. We start with an intent that is big – not driven by current capabilities or possibilities but from what we would like to achieve (a clear definition of end state that we aspire for). Having the intent in place, all our actions should be oriented towards achieving the intent (in a future article, I’ll discuss power of intention).

What makes thinking big so difficult? Why do some people are good at thinking big while many others struggle to push the limits? In order to think big, it is important to have the following traits;

Contrarian – we should be able to go beyond conventional wisdom. Follow uncharted paths and operate outside of our comfort zone. This is not easy but is required. Conventional wisdom limits our thinking ability. It does not encourage us to push our limits. We should continuously challenge the status quo and push the limits. Following uncharted paths will lead us to newer avenues/opportunities. Even if there are challenges, the learning that we derive from those experiences will help us to be more successful in the future. Hence, we should always explore uncharted paths than following conventional wisdom.

Risk taking – we cannot think/achieve big by playing safe. We should take risks. Most people do not take risks due to fear – Fear of Failure and Fear of criticism. Failure – we covered in an earlier blog that failure is good. History of any successful person in the world shows that they have dealt with failure. As for criticism, people who think big are always in minority. Hence, there will always be criticism (or skepticism). People will laugh at us from behind. But that’s ok. History has also proven that people who criticize are the same people who marvel when they see the achievements. When Eiffel tower design was announced, there was a huge uproar against it stating that a wrought iron monument would spoil the landscape of Paris that has many historical monuments like arc de triumph, Louvre museum etc. However, Gustave Eiffel stuck with the task of building Eiffel tower that has now become a major landmark of Paris.

Optimistic – Thinking big can only be achieved by looking at opportunities, not constraints. Constraints are everywhere. If there are no constraints, then this would become a perfect world. Hence, it is important to focus more on opportunities than getting bogged down by the constraints. When leaning tower of Pisa was built up to the third floor; it sunk into the ground due to weak foundation. Most people have asked the tower to be shelved and a new tower to be built. However Giovanne di Simone saw an opportunity and re-designed the architecture of the tower to build floors four to seven with one side taller than the other to compensate for the tilt. Thanks to its sinking & leaning, it has become world famous and the re-designed architecture enabled it to last more than 800 years. If the tower was not leaning, there would not have been any tourists visiting the tower.

Perfection – People who think big are not easily satisfied. They are difficult to impress. They always strive for perfection. They look to make things that are world class (best in class) and are always looking to make a difference. They would like to make a statement through their work and are willing to be focused, patient and put in lot of hard work to achieve it. When Michelangelo was given the task of painting altar wall of Sistine chapel, he spent four years to paint Last Judgment.  It was a fresco (mural painting executed on a wet plaster of the wall so that when it dries, it shows as a painting on the wall). He spent four years of his life on this one single fresco and was focused on turning it into a master piece. Today, many tourists visit Sistine chapel (and even Vatican museum) just to see Michelangelo paintings. That’s perfection.

Self-belief – Most important attribute of thinking big is having self-belief. As I keep saying to many people with whom I interact - if you do not have confidence in yourself, then how someone else can have confidence in you? It is ironical that we always underestimate ourselves. We should have self-confidence and belief that we are indeed best in the world (well… some might say that is over confidence but I’d any day be on the side of over confidence than no confidence). We should always be willing to learn, have passion for excellence and be enthusiastic.

Thinking Big is important as it drives our lives and actions and catapults us into a different league. Most people are not able to achieve success, not because of the limitation of their capabilities but due to their inability to think big. Thinking Big sets people apart and is an enabler for success. How BIG can you THINK?

Feedback - Managing difficult conversations

Feedback – a process that, incidentally, both the person who is giving and one who is receiving dread. What makes feedback so difficult for both the parties? It is primarily because both people do not know what to expect. When the associate walks into the room, she is unsure of how her manager interpreted her performance over the period. Similarly, manager is unsure of how her comments would be received by the associate. Both the parties are walking into the room expecting a confrontation, which creates a tense environment. Not a great place to begin having a feedback conversation.

Let me play out a typical scenario:

Raj (Manager) walks into the room to have feedback conversation with Jennie (associate). Raj is confident as he has prepared well for the meeting. He has all the details, data points captured well. He structured his conversation with all the right words. He sits down with Jennie and takes her through his evaluation. Jennie interrupts multiple times to ask questions. They disagree on many points as she has a different interpretation of the events from Raj. Raj, being the manager, finally prevails, gives her the rating, talks about what Jennie should be focusing on for next 6 months. Raj walks out of the meeting relieved that it is finally over and that Jennie would work on the action items for next 6 months. Jennie walks out of the meeting feeling angry that her performance has not been evaluated right and since there is no buy in on the points mentioned by Raj, there are no action items for her.

Where did this conversation end? What is the outcome of the time spent by both the manager and the associate? For both of them, it is an ordeal that has to be done with. Raj can now focus on other things for next 6 months and for Jennie, she will get over her anger (over time or through a role/job change) until it is time to have another conversation with her (old/new) manager.

How could this change where the feedback conversation is not an event but a process? Into a meeting that both the manager and associate could look forward to, a conversation that could translate the potential of the associate into performance, a conversation that would setup the associate for greater success?

Following are few building blocks that could make this conversation more effective:

Trust – Foundation for any effective interaction is trust. There has to be trust between manager and associate. Manager trusting associate that he/she has the right intent, willing to do what is right for the organization and for herself; and associate trusting manager that he has the right intent and is willing to invest in associate to be successful. More often than not, we find this missing. There are always questions about the intent. Manager has to take the first step to build this trust. This has to be done over a period of time (and not just at the merit or bonus time). Manager has to invest time to understand the associate – who she is, her aspirations, objectives, strengths, weaknesses, what excites her and what would not interest her etc. The best way to do this is through Listening. We usually find managers talk more while associates listen. To build trust and to understand the associate, it is important for manager to listen and for associate to talk. This should ideally be done through frequent short conversations as against one very long conversation.

Timely – It is important that manager shares his observations in a timely manner - as soon as he observes – both good and not so good behaviors/actions/outcomes. None of us are perfect and there are areas where we do well and areas we struggle. Manager has to be objective and share his observations with the associate in a timely manner. Doing it once in 3, 6 or 12 months brings in recent effect (where only actions/outcomes of the recent past are remembered or measured).

Fact based – While sharing observations it is important for Manager to be fact based. The conversation has to be data driven (as against based on interpretations). Managers always have to be cognizant on where they are operating on ladder of inference. Higher we are on the ladder, we are looking at the events based on filters/lens that we wear and hence we would be on a very slippery ground. It is important for manager just to be focused on the underlying data (without any filters). How many times have we seen that a manager does not find any weaknesses in a top performer and does not find any strong areas in a weak performer? Manager has to be data driven to ensure that there is a balanced view.

Team approach – Manager and associate have to work together as a team. It is important for the manager to give an opportunity to the associate to react to the data points (Note: Not interpretations). Manager and associate have to come to an agreement on what has worked well and what are the opportunities for the future. Through this approach, if there are certain points that do not have an agreement, it is ok. They should agree on an approach to observe together in those areas and to bring them up in their regular 1-1s. For the areas (both strengths and weaknesses) that they have agreement on, they should formulate an action plan and work on it. Action plan should have items both for the associate and for the manager.

Future oriented – One key aspect of any feedback conversation is that it should be future oriented. Past is gone and nothing can change it. It is important to focus the conversation on how it could mean a better future for both the associate and the manager as against focusing on the past mistakes/outcomes.

The above steps would make the feedback, a conversation that both the manager and the associate look forward to, a conversation that would happen many times a year (as against just around merit or bonus). More importantly, these steps would make feedback an easy and healthy conversation and such conversations would have significant impact on retention. How has been your experience on giving/receiving feedback?