1. HOW CAN OUR LEADERS RE-GAIN POWER WHEN COMPETING ON THE INTERNET?

Organizations (without leadership) repeat actions without a connection to a redeeming purpose for resolving problems in our lives.

Organizations (black boxes) can dominate us and be hard to run.
Leaders can be clueless as to how to solve problems. Often our leaders create the problems.

Thus, a leader is 'identified as the problem'. The results show up, at first in subtle ways, and later in the burst of a bubble. Global examples include our financial crisis and so on.

As followers, we know that the primary cause is our leaders.
As leaders, we know that the primary cause is our followers.

Leaders (and other helpers) rely on simple problem statements. Simple problem statements create simple solution statements. Meanwhile no one thinks about the cues, actions, results, payoffs and reinforcers triggering the expected future results.

So, with an incomplete view of reality, leaders and followers repeat actions with an immediate, positive, and certain payoff. In the meantime, the same repeating actions trigger future, negative, and uncertain payoffs.

We have some options to use -- when we look into our black box.

We can cut holes (window frames) into our black box. The size and location of our windows can give us solid cues to trigger useful actions. We can use our properly placed and sized windows to see and state the problems and solutions of our organization. Our new views help us state the multiple cues and actions within our organization. Our windows help us navigate the problem & solution statements as leaders and followers.

Our windows must help us:
- Design our PROCEDURES (goals, groups, & rules) to shape and channel our actions
- Connect the PROGRAMMING (repeating actions, rituals, & symbols) into helpful results
- Embrace our PEOPLE (who think solid thoughts and feel hope) .

And, our windows help us enter the political playing field -- where we compete to cooperate and cooperate to compete.

Within our windows, we can rotate and zoom in & out of each window. We can over lap, copy & paste, or delete the parts of each window to get new multiple views into our black box.

As we use multiple views into our black box, we transform the invisible into the visible at the intersect of two or more views -- not just for us (as leaders) but also for our beneficiaries and the grantors of our resources.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you agree or disagree with the above statement?

2. REDUCE COMPLEXITY INTO SIMPLICITY:

Organizations are complex.  Often they consist of multiple complex interacting complex systems. They consist of people, procedures and programming.

If a leader is not equipped with multiple problem solving processes then complex systems can be difficult to understand and manage.

Preconceived views filter what we see and do to get results. Oversimplified views cloud rather than clear the useful action. Complex systems require leaders and followers to navigate through phases of order and disorder (chaos).

If a leader, teacher, or manager is not trained to reduce complexity into simplicity then the lack of any ability to navigate the messy muddy reality of complex systems has a payoff of frustration and failure.

This same pattern repeats for followers, learners, and performers (workers).

Thus, big systems repeat the pattern of little systems. And, little systems repeat the pattern of big systems.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you agree or disagree?

10. Manage as a politician

All organizations involve politics.
Political action can harm people. But, politics can also help people.

Organizational change and effectiveness depend on political skills.

As a politician, I can act usefully.

I can see real world -- from a political viewpoint. I can initiate an agenda, map the political terrain, create a network of support, and negotiate with both allies and adversaries.

In the process, I will need to answer a strategic question.

The question is:
- Do I adopt an open, collaborative strategy
- Or, do I choose a tough, adversarial approach?
As I answer the above question, I will have to consider the benefits of collaboration, the importance of long-term relationships, and my own values and ethical principles.

A politician may be naïve or cynical.

If naïve then they view most people as kind and trustworthy.

If cynical then they view most people as selfish and untrustworthy.
But, neither approach is useful.

An organization needs “useful politicians” who are balanced and not naïve nor cynical.

A politician can act in a useful manner.

He can guide with ethical choices and values to:
- Satisfy the universal need for everyone to be helpful
- Open up our organzation to public scrutiny
- Look out for others -- beyond ourselves
- Officiate so everyone plays by the same rules.

He can:
- Map our situation
- Set our agenda
- Network to build support
- Negotiate for a more abundant worldview.

WORK WITH IMPOSSIBLE PEOPLE:

If I want to work with an impossible person then I must:
Control my thoughts and feelings:

Realize all of us get stressed and respond with two channels:
[Facts ]- The actual problem statements.
[Feelings]- My relationship with the other person.

Focus on the expected action, not the PERSON.
Make my point without making an ENEMY!

Clarify their purpose statement versus my purpose statement.
Clarify their expected results versus my expected results.

Slow down my reactions.
Evaluate the alternative solution statements.

I Can Influence an "Impossible Person" - As Follows:
LISTEN TO THEIR IDEAS -- even if I would prefer not to listen.
Respect them.
Maintain eye contact.

If I want to cooperate with the impossible person then I can:
1. Say, "I" have a problem statement.
2. Describe the action/problem.
3. Use coaching words:
"I can help ..."
"I can try ... "

If I do NOT want to cooperate with the impossible person:
Say, "You/we have a problem."
Judge the action/problem.
Use control words like:
"You must ... "
"You have to ... "

IF I want to WORK TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMs with the 'impossible person'.

Stop Judging the 'Impossible Person' & Ask:
"How can I help?"
"How do I feel about his request?"
"Why do I feel that way?"
"What am I able to do?"
"What am I willing to do?"
"Is the situation impossible or is the person impossible?"
"Did my information/action trigger his action?
OR Is his action a repeating pattern with other people and me?"

--- If I talk directly and tactfully with him, what is the likely result?
--- What is the cost? Benefit? Risk?
--- Do I continue to accept his action and not do anything?
--- Do I confront him and request a change of action?
--- Do I avoid (physically leave) the person?

Handle an Aggressive/Hostile Person:
When he attacks my problem and ME then he tries to put me on the defensive to control me.

I can:
Listen and define the problem.
Say, "May I finish before I hear your reaction."

Be specific with hurting him -- in return.
Work on generating alternative solutions.

Use his name.
Reinforce my comments with solid eye contact.

If the hostile person is family then set up a time to talk later.
If the hostile person is a boss, do not walk away.

Handle an 'Impossible' Person:
Stop hoping they will change or DROP DEAD.
Stop blaming/judging them as insecure, strange, wierd, etc.

Focus on Solving the Required Problems:
Ask, "Is it the person or the situation?"

If it is the person then decide if my purpose is to:
Accept his actions.
Change his actions.
Walk away from the situation.

Use the Problem Solving Steps
State our problem/issue -- ask:
"Who/What did what to WHOM/WHAT?"
"When did what happen?"
"Where did it happen?"
"Should we write the problem down?"

Develop a list of alternative solution statements:
"What are your solution statements?"
"What if ...?"

Focus on one solution statement:
"WHO/WHAT needs to do WHAT by WHEN and WHERE?"

Plan the future expected action:
Write down "WHO/WHAT DOES WHAT BY WHEN AND WHERE?"

Follow up - to re-inforce positively:

"When do I have your agreement to follow-up?"

TRANSFORM 'LEADERSHIP TRAINING':

We need to prepare people to lead schools that provide leadership training for everyone.

Thus, we need to make three changes in our 'learning networks'.

If we (as trainers of leaders) want to remain useful (in an era of accountability) then we must
prepare 'learning leaders' to lead 'learning networks'. Learning networks will improve access to
learning opportunities for learners of all ages and stages in life. Learning networks will ground
our ability to change an organization. And, every organization that wants to survive must have a 'learning network' embedded in the fabric of the organization.

We need to:
1. Develop content focused to prepare learners to lead and form meaningful partnerships:

- Write a set of action statements to be done by all graduates from our training
- Base our training content & sequence our training on the action statements (competencies)
- Align our training actions to prepare our graduates to act in the future
- Develop & sustain learning via project teams organized to solve problems.

2. Ask learners to complete actions based on assignments to:

- Learn how to delegate responsibility
- Hold classmates accountable
- Hone interpersonal skills
- Enhance team learning
- Inspire leaders with the ability to repeat the actions needed to transform an organization.

3. Use the problem solving process to improve the process of instruction -- as follows:

- Sustain learning and achieve curricular ends
- Simulate the work of a leader in the controlled setting of the classroom
- State authentic problems closely mirroring the realities of the job
- Develop the ability to analyze complex systems - as we act within the system
- Recognize the problem solving process is more useful than the case-study method.

4. Put 'learning leaders' in positions to:

- Make decisions
- Face the results
- Role-play interactions with various constituents
- Learn by doing.

5. Reflect the best of what we know about learning:

- Allow 'learning leaders' to practice leading by facing complex problem scenarios
- Simulate the situations of real organizations
- Include data related to our learners actions, staff profiles, budgets, etc.

6. Simulate the work of a leader via the assignments. For example:

- Write emails to staff planning for professional development
- Direct, coach, support, and delegate the work of teachers
- Plan a master calendar to get quality actions completed.

7. Organize into project teams and apply reality-based assignments -- as follows:

- Foster learning through coaching
- When the content requires it then dip directly in to teach the process as mini-lessons
- Divide-up the content to be simulated, taught directly, and best learned on the job.
Thus, When the training simulates the actual leadership actions on the jobthen 'learning leaders' will be more useful at leading improvements in instruction.

I think that we cannot rely on teachers in universities teaching leadership classes to change from within. I think that the customers (students) must demand the opportunity to apply processes.

If current faculty members do not have the breadth of practical knowledge and academic ambition then people exist in industry and the 'private training industry' to provide the leadership trainers.

Necessary skills for effective leadership include the ability to manage personal time, actions, and money. If a person cannot do that for themselves then they will be hard pressed to train someone else to do it.

The customer must demand the changes.

9. Conflict & cooperate to balance our power:

Old windows into an organization see control by powerful leaders. The leaders run everything.
Orders come down from the high command. And, often leaders control others by keeping secrets.

From our political windows into our organization, we see ourselves (as leaders) holding the power of our position. And, from our position we defend ourselves from our competitors who want our same position. Our competitors have their own beliefs, values, and agendas. They want access to our power to compete for their share of scarce resources in our organization. Our own challenge is to establish personal 'credibility'.

If we focus on our similarities then we can talk and listen. If we focus on our differences then we will neither talk nor listen.

Meanwhile, new procedures may emerge from ongoing bargaining among major power groups. Sometimes new people will attempt to legitimatize their leadership by dominating this action.
In our public information organizations (like schools), the control may be more decentralized.

The control is by people with tenure rather than by our legitimate leaders.
The power group in a school district may be the teachers’ union. But, many may think the BOE or the CEO has the power. The use of power grows from the ongoing contest for the same resources.

We assume that the resources are scarce. We assume that if we get the power then we will get ahead. We assume that if get ahead then we will be considered highly valuable.
But, others may assume that if we get power then we may use it to harm people.

Power and politics can demean and destroy. Or, if we want our organization to perform at an optimum level then we can apply politics as a useful tool. We can use power and politics to increase the size of the pie rather than to assume the pie is fixed in size.

From our software programming windows into our organization, we see emails and blogs reducing the half life of a secret to ten seconds. If our competitors (other potential leaders) must gain their credibility by keeping secrets then they fight the flow of our future programming tools.

If our competitors gain their credibility by building 'learning networks' and including the email
addresses of more and more people then they add new resouces to their ability to increase the size of our pie -- and at a lower cost.

8. Act within our interperson and our group

We are normally paid to work for an organization. And, we always bring our personal and social needs with us to our organization.

We spend time interacting with others, one on one and in groups. If the quality of our interaction with each other is useful then our result is a healthy, helpful organization and satisfied people.

My ability to listen and talk is critical for effective relationships. Others (including myself) may prioritize self-protection. And, some of us need control of others. Others of us realize that we can only influence.

But, our need is to develop an effective organization based on mutual values and learning. Our learning includes awareness of ourselves and other people. And, our learning includes the ability to handle feelings and diverse relationships.

Groups always operate with at least two channels: task and process. Both channels need to be managed - if a groups is to be effective.

See Teams