The Prevalence of Blind Spots

When it comes to vision, most animals care very little for the substance of things. Their eyes are oriented to movement. No so for human beings. Our eyes are continually filling the field of vision with content, even when it’s not there. The anatomical structure of the human eye causes a blind spot which is filled by the surrounding environment in a way that we may never notice. A simple visual exercise confirms it.

"We spend about one-tenth of our waking hours completely blind." (A Natural History of Seeing, Simon Ings)

Cultural biases and organizational norms cause blind spots as well. “Taboos” exist which we cannot address because we don’t know they are there. We can’t “see” them, above all, in our own daily environment. The consequences, though often not apparent in the short term, have enduring impact over the course of time and history.

One way to increase our awareness and uncover blind spots is by comparison and contrast. Examining the differences between a microbiology lab and a high energy physics lab (ethnographic study) helps scientific and technical leaders uncover their blind spots. The patterns and practices for generating new knowledge are very different in these labs, for those who have eyes to see.

Just as an ophthalmologist tests visual fields of the eyes, it is possible to check periodically for blind spots of leaders. Paradoxical as it may seem, successful leaders know how to look for their own blind spots as well as those of their organization. Leaders can develop and practice skills to make visible what is invisible. As a result new fields of awareness emerge.

Awareness precedes choice. Energy follows attention

Profitability and True Value

Several important people in my life, including my son, urged me to read David Brooks op ed column in the New York Times several weeks back now. I only recently got to it. Alas, "In Praise of Dullness" challenges much of what I hold important in my life and work. Brooks asserts that recent research proves that “warm, flexible, team-oriented and empathetic people are less likely to thrive as C.E.O.’s. Organized, dogged, anal-retentive and slightly boring people are more likely to thrive.” He even cites Jim Collin’s seminal work, Good to Great in support of his argument.

As one reaches the conclusion of his column, the “political” nature of his argument becomes blatantly apparent. It reinforces the need to test underlying assumptions (which are frequently very political in nature) and examine common practices for sustainable value. For example, Brooks equates political talent (ala Washington D.C. in any case ) with “charisma, charm and personal skills”. If politics is indeed about the inevitable exercise of power and struggle for control, then political skills are much more about persuasive influence and effective management than Brooks leads the reader to believe. And such political skills are important to successful leaders, regardless of position.

The current economic climate does not speak well of the “success” of American businesses, including the leadership of many CEOS. If innovation is indeed required to maintain or regain competitive strength, the human all too human factors in the work environment, including the need for trust and some measure of personal fulfillment, are essential.

Insufficient criteria for success are confused with generating sustainable true value. Paradoxically, “breaking the rules “ of what many have deemed “profitable” may be what is required.

The Bad Rap of "Politics"

Over twenty years ago, Peter Block published a book entitled The Empowered Manager, Positive Political Skills at Work. It is one of the few references I have found that acknowledges the inevitable reality of politics as well as the possibility of redeeming the meaning of the word itself. Max Weber defined politics as “the struggle for power”. (The word “politics” originally comes from the Greek word polis meaning city or state.) The struggle for power is a reality day after day, wherever people gather.

Block writes: “The process of organizational politics as we know it works against people… We empower ourselves by finding a positive way of being political. The line between positive and negative politics is a tightrope we have to walk. We must be powerful advocates… in a way that does not alienate those around and above us.”

SFB Associates is launching our Politics of Creativity™ Assessment this week. It is very simply five propositions and twenty normative statements which we believe will help R&D functions in particular find positive ways of being political. Proposition # 1: Innovators break rules. This is not necessarily bad, but it is almost inevitably political. Our purpose is to break down the barriers that give politics a bad rap in organizations – naming it for what it is – “a struggle for power” which is real and needs to be more effectively addressed if we want more innovative break-throughs.