Powerful Conversation(s)

I recently asked a group of senior technical people, scientists and engineers, the question: "What is the most powerful conversation you have participated in at work in the last three months?"

Their responses ranged from: 1)a very negative experience where the project team was told by management that they had been working on a project that had been dropped from the priority list months ago to; (2)a conversation that was emotionally-charged and therefore powerful to; (3)knowing that my input was making a difference to; (4)asking individual technical professionals what kind of work they really wanted to be engaged in.

A powerful conversation in my judgment is one that surfaces and even challenges underlying assumptions.

A powerful conversation makes it possible to discuss "undiscussables".

A powerful conversation shifts the frame of what is being discussed. A new way of looking at the challenges or opportunities at hand unfolds.

Powerful conversations require a relationship, not just a connection, where it is "safe" to go beneath the surface of the usual management reporting protocols.

As one technical lead stated: "I can't remember when I was last in a conversation that wasn't all roadblocks."

What do you think makes for a "powerful conversation"? When was the last time you participated in one? What could you do to facilitate such a conversation?

The Randomness of Insight

The creative process is not linear. Nor is the way I think always linear. Sometimes the randomness of what catches my attention actually gives way to new insight, IF I don't work it too hard! Yet I often paralyze myself with an injunction that I must write tight, logical, sequences of thought or nothing at all.

The following are some thoughts and phrases that landed on me from speakers at TED Global2009 in Oxford which continue to lobby for more attention from me.

“Your train of thought is sacred.”

“How do you observe something you can’t see?”

“democratization of intimacy”

“Nothing is built on stone; everything is built on sand. But we must build as if on stone.”

“Train your heart to see what the world has given you.”

“We are the first society to be living in a world where we don’t worship anything other than ourselves.”

“Obsessions make my life worse and my work better.”

“Make sure our ideas of success are our own.”

“Context is everything.”


Sometimes allowing for some randomness in our work is the most important thing we can do.

Learning with Constrast and Differences - TEDGlobal 2009

The TEDGlobal 2009 Conference which concluded Friday afternoon in Oxford was unquestionably THE most stimulating and engaging professional conference I have ever been privileged to experience. Most notable to me was the diversity of talent, stories, projects, people, from all over the world. Immediate affirmation was everywhere of the power of contrast and differences to stimulate learning and deepen global understanding. I was working at spanning and bridging ideas in my mind all week long! Exhausting! And wonderful…

Orphaned hip hop artist, Emmanuel Jal's story of surviving the Sudanese civil wars celebrated in exploding rhythms the difference just one person can make, i.e. Emma McCune, the aid worker who rescued him (and has subsequently died – details were not able to be shared). V.K. Madhavan, the Executive Director, Central Himalayan Rural Action Group, a group specializing in rural agricultural development is also a TED Fellow. In a soft-spoken way, each time I spoke with Madhavan during the week, he conveyed his dedication to empowering women who work in agriculture in rural India. With just a few comments, his passion and commitment were not only evident but inspiring!

The stage was occupied (never more than 18 minutes) by the prominent ( e.g. Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Britain) and the not so well-known or even obscure ( Jason Soll, a student at Claremont McKenna College who “flourished” cards for 3 minutes while energizing all of us with how learning can flourish). Michael Naylor, Director, Canopy Capital, London and a fellow participant, spoke with me as we walked to Oxford’s Natural History Museum to view the movie, "Home" . Each time we subsequently met during the course of the week, I realized a new depth of concern and care for the intricate systems of the planet we inhabit.

Many TED talks are available on-line - more in time from Global2009 Conference, most from previous conferences. IF you want to keep your mind alert and your learning at the edge, I strongly encourage viewing a TED talk from time to time. It only takes 18 minutes OR LESS.

Leaders Inspire by the Way They Inquire

" 'Search' has made us all drive-by scholars," writes Gregory Rodriguez last week in his column in the Los Angeles Times entitled, "Answers Can Be Found in Questions" . He addresses the fundamental value of inquiry, a skill that is waining in our society, as he points out.

He cites a newly published book by Andrea Batista Schlesinger entitled, The Death of "Why?", The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy. Batista Schlesinger writes: "The way we interact with information reveals the priority we place on trivia over investigation, consumption over explanation, speed over reflection..."

Coincidentally, just this week I finished writing a paper with my colleagues that addresses the value of skilled inquiry when seeking to engage employees in tough times. We look at some of the "political" issues related to how the questions of performance and potential are framed in R&D organizations. We review four ways our clients have validated success with skillful inquiry:(1) listening posts; (2) cascading conversations; (3) skip-level meetings; and (4) barrier-busting by managers.

In our experience the "political" nature of any inquiry about performance and potential in the R&D space, both organizational and individual, will either deepen employee commitment through this economic downturn or perpetuate more cynicism and distrust.

As Rodriguez' column highlights, the value and power of inquiry is being compromised with consequences we may not realize in the immediacy of our "search".

Leaders inspire by the way they inquire!

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

Tapping the Full Potential of Top Talent

More than one of our clients in the last year has asked the question: “Are we maximizing the contribution or optimizing the potential of our technical employees?” “How do we know if the performance of our R&D pipeline indeed reflects the full potential of the top talent in our labs?”

While looking for a response to that question may be useful, any answer to it is inherently “political”. Why? First, because the criteria for “performance” are not widely understood and accepted the deeper one goes in most R&D organizations. There is often substantial disagreement about how “performance” is recognized and rewarded (and not much dialogue about what performance really means to the professional at the bench). Secondly, human potential cannot be captured by any metric. There is always more potential.

The answer will always be political; the inquiry, however, is essential.

When asked about employee potential, THE most frequent indicator that management points to is the “engagement survey” conducted by corporate HR or global shared services. I was recently sitting in a break-out group with a 10-12 scientists from the R&D function. We were asked to work on the low scores on an "engagement survey" related to “working with the customer”. The entire 90 minutes was spent debating what “customer” means for the R&D group. The group virtually discounted the value of the entire survey because of lack of shared understanding - not just related to ”customer” but other aspects as well for those completing it.

Trying to decode corporate surveys is no substitute for being engaged oneself.

Our Need for "Answers"

Leaders are distinguished more by the questions they ask

than any answers they may have.

We have asserted this to be true since the earliest days of our consulting practice. It sounds good, most of the time. But affirming it in practice is yet another matter. When times are tough and resources scarce, I am struck by how deeply leaders struggle to find the "solution" by imposing on themselves, often unconsciously, the belief that they need to have the "answer", preferably yesterday! Ironically, the more intense the pressure for "answers", the poorer our questions become. Powerful persistent inquiry gives way to paralysis by analysis in search for the "answer".

Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, commented recently, "How do you create a climate in which truth is heard? The first thing is to increase your questions-to-statements ratio. Have someone track it and see if you can double it next year. The leaders in our studies asked lots of questions. They were Socratic. By asking questions, they got the brutal facts, as well as lots of insights and ideas." (Business Week, August 25/Sept 1 , 2008)

We're ready to do just that - track the balance of advocacy and inquiry in a given group or organization - and document the impact over a period of time - as a new component to our Disciplined Inquiry methodology.

How does one know, as leader, when to share the "answer" (if you, indeed have one) and when to pose a new, powerful question? If you're exhausted and feeling way overwhelmed, if not outright discouraged, consider the latter as indeed the more productive way to generate commitment and recover a productive path forward.

Curiosity as a Leadership Competency

"Curiosity killed the cat," or so the old adage goes. Why does that phrase continue to come to mind when I think "curiosity"? Curiosity is a prerequisite for learning and an essential element of creativity. Yet there is much about the work environment of many organizations that kills curiosity.

A few months ago my daughter, Jennifer, and I presented a workshop for General Mills ITQ (Innovation, Technology and Quality) Conference on leaders becoming more effective "curiosity catalysts". (The mind map of our presentation done at the conference is below. ) One way we encouraged participants to promote curiosity is by leading effectively with questions. We discussed how the "malpractice of inquiry" stifles curiosity (and good, timely questions) again and again. An example of the "malpractice of inquiry" is when a manager asks a question and the answer has already been decided or so it seems to the group hearing the question.

MindMapping by Stephanie Crowley

Janet Rae-Dupree writing in last week's Sunday NYT ("Can you Become a Creature of New Habits?) comments: "We tend to believe that those who think the way we do are smarter than those who don't. That can be fatal in business...particulary with executives who surround themselves with like thinkers." Regarding curiosity, she references the work of Dawna Markova, author of The Open Mind: "The first thing we need for innovation is fascination with wonder, but we are taught instead to 'decide'...". "You cannot have innovation unless you are willing and able to move through the unknown and go from curiosity to wonder."

Just a couple of weeks ago I was visiting with Tim Cejka, President, ExxonMobil Exploration Company, in his office about the practice of "collective inquiry" in their organization. Their experience offers evidence that organizations can become creatures of new habits! "Collective Inquiry" is a meeting protocol now used by their leaders to signal explicitly a meeting designed to promote curiosity about technical issues that have enormous consequences. Learning is given priority over deciding in these meetings. Curiosity is expected and encouraged. The results have been tangible, including fewer dry wells drilled.

"Never lose a holy curiosity," wrote Albert Einstein. Effective leaders know the value of curiosity.