The "soft stuff" is the hard stuff, as many CEOs know too well. Never doubt that there are ways to make real inroads by putting programs in place to change behaviors that move the needle on key employee metrics - and ultimately the company’s financial performance.

There is a diagram floating around LinkedIn and Twitter that attempts to illustrate an individual’s true ‘purpose’. It’s amusing to me, because it’s short-sighted. It may even be delivering a disservice to some. Whenever I come across the graphic, I immediately wonder if it’s doing a disservice to employees everywhere. There are four circles in the Venn Diagram, where the overlapping circles read as follows: Passion/Profession - That which you are good at Passion/Mission - That which you love Mission/Vocation - That which the world needs Profession/Vocation - That which you can be paid for In the middle of all four circles is a blue star, which denotes ‘purpose’. Cute, but it’s rather myopic. The diagram suggests your purpose (arguably something that is aided and abetted by whether or not an employee is engaged at work) isn’t affected by other factors such as your direct manager, your team, or the organization where you work. Naturally, this got me thinking. I think everyone deserves to reach their purpose in life, at work, and so on. I believe, however, that it is extremely difficult to achieve one’s purpose without the support of other factors in the place (or places) where he or she works. Therefore, I whipped up the "Corporate Culture in a Venn" diagram to depict something that does take into account four key factors: Self/Boss - Relationship or Transactional Does an employee and his/her boss actually have a productive, communicative relationship — where the leader is helping the employee develop, learn, grow, etc. — or is the duo more of a transaction, where the boss uses the employee as an asset, treating him/her like headcount, and not caring whatsoever about his/her future. Does the employee use the boss solely for a paycheque? Boss/Team - Open or Closed The employee is normally part of a team of some varying size. If the the team and the direct leader is open, reciprocal and  accessible, it does wonders for purpose and engagement. If, however, both the boss and the team exhibit closed behaviours — unwilling to adapt, be proactive or ideate — it’s a definitive nail in the coffin of goodness. Self/Org - Committed or Indifferent When the organization and its senior leadership are committed to the employee (fair wages, community involvement, learning and development opportunities, etc.) it is far easier for the employee to commit him or herself to the organization’s mission, satisfying its goals, customer commitments, and so on. If the organization is indifferent — not caring about the employees who make up their "most valuable asset" quips on annual reports, you can be certain the employees will become indifferent to the organization as well. Org/Team - Connected or Absent For a team to be a successful cog in the wheel of the entire organization, it must feel connected to other teams, thus other parts of the organization. For an organization to act as one, it itself must be connected to all teams, not simply the Sales Team or Marketing, for example. When all teams are connected, the organization becomes symbiotic. If, however, a team becomes absent — making no effort to connect with other teams, or the organization — it is the very definition of silos, fiefdoms and stovepipes. In other words, a culture killer. If all four components mentioned above are achieved — Relationship, Open, Committed and Connected — I believe (through my experience and research) that the organization will become engaged, and thus the employee has a greater chance of achieving their purpose.   Dan's Related Posts:In Answer To Your Questions About FLAT ARMYthe FLAT ARMY cheat sheetPerhaps the Purpose of an Organization?Maybe We Should Be More Like a Fridge at WorkFuture Of Work: A Flat Army Of Open Leadership via A.G. Lafley

At Interaction Associates, we work with clients to achieve greater and more sustainable levels of business return on investment, by delivering a different ROI — Return on Involvement™.

Business leaders are embracing collaborative leadership to drive strong business results. What is collaborative leadership -- and what's involved in making it work in your organization? How can you know if you have what it takes to be an effective collaborative leader?

I had the good fortune of spending some time in the great city of Montreal this week, on what many call a "business trip". Despite the unrelenting Arctic chill that continues to engulf its inhabitants — since late last year, a perpetual blanket of roughly a million degrees below zero — it dawned on me that there are three individuals in particular who continue to warm the omnipresent frigidness of the city. (And I was lucky enough to spend some time with each of them.) Karl Moore is Professor of Strategy and Organization at McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management, having done so since 2000. His specialties center around the business world, specifically globalization, leadership, CEO leadership, and strategy. He has previously taught at leading universities such as Oxford, London Business School, Cambridge, Darden, Cornell, INSEAD, Duke, the Drucker School, the Rotterdam School of Management, IIM Bangalore and Queen’s. Not too shabby, dare I say. We met for an hour over an espresso and ‘pain au chocolate’ at his favourite haunt, Cafe Castel, beside the McGill campus. He owns the place, saying hello to every other passerby on the street, and two-thirds of the people in the joint itself. But that’s Karl. He is a wonderful connector, a networking aficionado, and a very deep thinker about all nuances with respect to the organization. He hosts a very popular radio show where he interviews CEO’s and other leaders. His writing and quotations at The Globe and Mail is vast and extensive, with over 800 references. (800!) Our talk, as usual, covered an array of topics. He was very helpful regarding a couple of strategies for my next book, as well as providing some insight into the content itself. He’s genuinely interested in the plight of the organization, which is probably why I think he’s so cool. He even asked when I might be returning to higher education / academia. That answer, naturally, remains private between the two of us. I’m looking forward to reading his next book, and generally anything that he puts out there on various mediums. I’m a much richer person knowing Karl, and reading or listening in on his various contributions. Karl is the first of my Montreal wise men, and if you weren’t aware of his writing or intellectual thoughts, be sure to click any of the links above to remedy it. You won’t be disappointed, I assure you. Jon Husband was the next wise man I met up with this week in Montreal. We enjoyed a lovely dinner at a restaurant that anyone would fall in love with at first bite. (I urge you to visit Restaurant Laloux the next time you’re in Montreal - you won’t be disappointed.) Almost five years ago, I introduced Jon in this very space with a story entitled, "My Network Is My Net Worth". Indeed, my net worth continues to increase as a result of having Jon in my life. Ever since meeting him in 2009, Jon and I have had far-ranging and multiple conversations about the ‘future of work’ … even when it seemed there was no future. Our dinner this week was no different. His self-described ‘deep generalist’ DNA continues to improve my competence and understanding of the world in which we live. Jon is a walking encyclopedia, able to rhyme off book after book and their importance, not only on him, but on other authors and organizations that took the intellectual property to enact change or new bodies of knowledge. If you aren’t aware of Jon’s writing, you must at a minimum ‘lunch and learn’ with yourself and review his thoughts on his rather brilliant and self-defined principle known as Wirearchy. To get you started, Jon defines Wirearchy as: An emergent organizing principle that informs the ways that purposeful human activities and the structures in which they are contained is evolving from top-down direction and supervision (hierarchy’s command-and-control) to champion-and-channel … championing ideas and innovation, and channeling time, energy, authority and resources to testing those ideas and the possibilities for innovation carried in those ideas. I even cited it in FLAT ARMY, specifically in Chapter 8, The Collaborative Leader Action Model. What I appreciated this week when we met up for dinner was his belief in me. He thoughtfully provided a coaching ear during our meal, in a manner that was part provocative, part reminder, and part sanity check. I’m grateful for Jon, and that is why he’s the second of my Montreal wise men. The third and final wise man who I spent time with in Montreal this week was none other than Henry Mintzberg.  You know, the brilliant mind and author of 15 books including classics such as The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning and Managers Not MBAs. He’s also a colleague of Karl Moore, holding the Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies role at McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management. Henry really needs no introduction. He possesses one of the — if not the top — management minds of the past 50 years. (I’m trying very hard to catch up.) I’ve spoken with and interviewed Henry on the phone before, but had never been fortunate enough to spend any time with him face-to-face, in any sort of intimate atmosphere. That all changed on Tuesday of this week. How lucky was I. Walking through the streets of the neighbourly district in Montreal known as NDG — Notre-Dame-de-Grâce — we finally stumbled upon what seemed like a makeshift restaurant below ground that served African food. It was delectable. The plantain was out-of-this-world, but so too was our conversation. Henry had just released his most recent book, "Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal Beyond Left, Right, and Center". At 75 years of age, it is arguably one of Henry’s best. (Go buy it.) There is no stopping this man, and I hope he continues writing books like this for another 30 years. The latest centers around the hard-line positions society takes (those on the left, and those on the right) arguing that society actually requires a balance between private, public and plural organizations. He likens it to a 3-legged stool (something I often use in my talks) claiming the stool will fall over if one of the legs are removed, or become out of balance. This was a great discussion to have with him over lunch. I consider myself a lucky man. Over our walk and during the incredible food we devoured at lunch, I learned Henry is an ardent cyclist, regaling me with stories of biking trips across Europe, Japan and Canada. Given I’ve got a penchant for cycling as well, I didn’t think it was possible to like the man any more than I originally did, but he proved me wrong yet again. I hope we can fit in a cycling excursion this summer, together. The weather might have been freezing to this follicular-challenged man of West Coast climate living, but the time I spent with Karl, Jon and Henry was scintillating if not blistering as it relates to my learning. These three wise men donated their time, and I was the benefactor. I reckon the combined management and intellectual experience of the three is over 120 years. I consider myself a blessed man, and consider this post a small form of gratitude in return for their sharing, time and camaraderie. I won’t ever forget the week. I won’t ever forget Montreal’s Three Wise Men. They have taught me so much. Thank you Karl, Jon and Henry.   Dan's Related Posts:LeisureInterlocutors of 2012 (the goats are better for it)Announcing the Full Book Cover Jacket of Flat ArmyI Missed My 25th High School Reunion That Never WasLessons Learned From a First Time Author

Effective collaborative organizational change is possible when the team is strategic and self-aware — and has a strong capacity for collaboration.

On occasion, I receive emails and requests to meet regarding the contents of FLAT ARMY. I try to answer those requests as best I can. Recently I received a series of provocative questions from a reader, and I thought it might be fruitful to release those answers in this space. I’ve removed the name and anything else that might infer the source:   Do you assume a homogeneous organization? I ask this from the point of view of how this affects a notion of engagement, trust and loyalty across different cultures within the same organization - i.e a global organization sensitive to many different leadership styles and nuances that don’t necessarily "match"? I don’t assume a homogeneous organization, but I do presume there is a common wish by the cohort of senior leaders to speak one ‘leadership language’ (with and between employees) under the auspices of a common organizational vision and mission. Trust, loyalty and the right to have purpose in one’s role supersedes any concern for the ‘singularity’ or homogeneity in our organizations. Employees want to feel they are valued, and that their role is meaningful to the organizations common mission. It can materialize in different ways due to regional cultures or geographical differences, but the end-goal should be the same for leaders; "to engage others to influence and execute a coordinated and harmonious conclusion."  Your definition of employee engagement "…reciprocal trust between employee and leadership to do what’s right…." Do you think there is a distinction to be made between loyalty and trust at a local level and leadership at a corporate level? I know that your view is that leadership is "for all" and not "in an ivory tower" - "but should permeate throughout". Nevertheless the connection between an employee in a small office in SE Asia to the centre in New York (let us say) is a remote one? As I write in the book, "Trust is not about rules. Trust is not about systems. To be trusting is to be mindful of the human condition." Is there really a difference for an employee based in SouthEast Asia to New York when it comes to trust, if defined as being mindful of the human condition? Leaders are clearly aware of what they are doing to employees if, for whatever reasons, the working conditions or the principles of work are bordering on malfeasance or corruption. To me, that is not trusting, nor will that create any iota of loyalty. If leadership does not trust the employee - if there is no loyalty for what he/she can do in the spirit of customer service, production, organisational goals, and so on - to do what’s right is as possible as inhabiting Mars next year. "To be trusting is to be able to act with authenticity and moral good." If there is no morality in leadership - wherever in the world that question is asked - there is no trust, no loyalty, and certainly no hope for employee engagement. In my own experience (personal view only) when you work for an organization that represents businesses from different industry sectors/markets, loyalty is to their product/professional community/their teams - not to the organization as a whole. Does that mean they are less engaged or happy? "They work with a passion" but not necessarily for the company as a whole - but their particular product and market sector. That’s where they feel engaged and want to demonstrate success.   Who they are owned by only affects them when the overall strategy and direction of the company decides they are to stay or not or benefits improve or decline. First of all, I don’t believe in happiness at work. It’s a rather unfortunate misnomer. I believe an employee can feel fulfilled, can be thriving, flourishing and indeed engaged at work if a) there is an organizational culture that puts employee engagement first, b) the organization’s purpose is to deliver results that serve the interests of all stakeholders in society and c) the employee recognizes the difference between a job, career and purpose mindset. If a team is myopically focused on solely its product, segment, customers, etc. it has the potential to be creating a disloyal, disengaged and disenfranchised employee - either in that team, or on the other teams that are trying to work with them in the first place. This is how a fiefdom, silo, stovepipe culture manifests - a very easy catalyst to disengagement in the organization. This is a very key concept leaders often misunderstand. Just because one team is engaged (and the leader looks great for creating an ‘engaged team’) it could be the root of problematic disengagement on other teams, due to the fact it is closed, and disingenuous to the needs of other teams, and the organization itself. It is the dropping irony of engagement. I’ve seen it first hand. A company I worked for (in a previous life) that was incredibly successful in its niche market and everyone who worked on it was very passionate about its success and its integrity to its loyal customers. There was the best feeling of comradeship and connectedness within the team than I’ve ever known.  What they didn’t notice was that the company they belonged to was changing direction. At the same time a social platform was replacing our intranet - which I was particularly drawn to. I suddenly saw a much wider picture of what was happening and when I mentioned one day "have you seen what our CEO is saying" - the first response I got was "who’s he?" A couple of years down the road the company was sold.  They were "dedicated" to doing the very best job, their sense of mission and passion was evident every day - but not to the organization. It was a restricted view. Does that make them less happy or engaged? Whilst that team may have been engaged (perhaps by anyone’s definition) what about the other teams, and what about the final verdict? If a team is solely looking out for itself, without concern or care for the greater purpose of the organization (if it’s defined as I have suggested earlier) then there are going to be all sorts of other employees and teams that are disengaged (or not engaged) as a result of the selfish actions of this myopic thinking/acting team. Your situation is nothing new, sadly. Many organizations and its senior leaders award accolades and bonuses to leaders of teams with ‘high engagement’ when they are the very cause of disengagement in the organization itself. Another area to watch out for are those employees who are simply ‘managing up’, pretending to be engaged for fear of reprisal from their leader. If the first response from your example above was "Who is the CEO?", it’s a ‘head in the sand’ syndrome coupled by the potential that this team was ‘managing up’ to ensure it looked good in the eyes of the leader. I work in an organization that is based on a "command and control " basis - recently reinforced by the arrival of a new CEO. I work at HQ so I feel the changes and see it at play all the more acutely as the new strategy is slowly played out. As I said in my email to you, I think very much along the lines of what I’ve read in your book and I run projects in a way that allows me to be transactional, collaborative, engaging , considerate, inclusive, humble, but insistent and executing . But if the organization I work for doesn’t reflect that - am I wasting my time? Can you "be FLAT ARMY" in an organization of command and control? I hold out hope that a flat armada can indeed be successfully implemented anywhere, in any situation. When they take the throne as King and Queen of the Kingdom, I envision (or at least hope) Will and Kate will lead the way to a new way of operating royally. Perhaps they can become a beacon of hope, in the United Kingdom, for example. "I have stated repeatedly through FLAT ARMY that leadership is for all, and that to become both a connected and collaborative leader, a camp mentality must not form. It is not us against them. It’s not a game between those with direct reports and those without. Leadership is not found in a white ivory tower; it permeates throughout, meandering like a river, reaching all banks of the organization. If you’ve missed that message, you may have wasted your money investing in this book. It too is not about a continuous group hug. Inclusivity is important and employee engagement is key but getting things done is also critical. Equality between the two must form. It is the new organizational symbiosis." Dan's Related Posts:The Simple Act of TrustingCorporate Culture in a Venn DiagramDon’t Be a FOOL: Fear of Open LeadershipGreat Work Interview - Flat Army & Michael Bungay Stanierthe FLAT ARMY cheat sheet

As the economic climate grows more challenging, business leaders worry about productivity and performance. In business, agreements are the links that connect strategy to execution, and ensure the urgent and necessary work gets done.

It was 35 years ago this week when Terry Fox started his Marathon of Hope. Truth be told, my hero is Terry, a Canadian legend. His is a story of creating the result that cannot be matched. In 1977, Terry contracted cancer in his right leg. It was amputated, but this courageous and tenacious basketball player didn’t let that stop him. In 1980, he set out to raise $24 million for cancer research — $1 for every Canadian citizen — by running across Canada under the banner called ‘Marathon of Hope’. That’s right, Terry intended to run marathon a day in hopes he could attain his goal. His quest commenced in the spring of 1980 in St. John’s, Newfoundland which would take him across Canada where he would dip his leg in the Pacific Ocean in Victoria, British Columbia at some point in the Fall of 1980. Cancer is inhumane and it came back to stop Terry in his tracks in Thunder Bay, Ontario after 143 days and 5,373 kilometres of running. Do the math, it’s just shy of a marathon a day for 143 days on one human leg and one prosthetic leg. I was 10 years old. Stunned, shocked and disappointed was how I was feeling back then. Nine months later, Terry succumbed to cancer where I and my nation mourned uncontrollably from the loss. Unjust doesn’t begin to describe the irony. Some 30 years later, Terry’s goal of $24 million has easily been reached with the annual Terry Fox Run — the world’s largest one-day fund-raising event for cancer research — bringing in well over $500 million to date. During the ‘Marathon of Hope’ itself, Terry was joined by his brother Darrell and good friend Doug Alward. It was here where Terry demonstrated the act of creating the result. Terry’s pugnacious drive and hardened vision would not allow failure to be an option. He was resilient and always on top of Doug and Darrell to achieve the daily goal in hopes of reaching the overall objective. He was relentless. He was focused. He praised his team when needed, and pushed if necessary. Terry was accountable to the team, himself and the mission. His stamina — physically and mentally — was unassailable. Were it not for the unkind fortune of a disease that doesn’t seem to quit, Terry would have accomplished his feat with dignity, engagement and a results positive outcome. He inspired a generation (and now a second generation) to be bold, driven and at all times to create the result. I know he has done that for me and lately with our children. Can Terry be your inspiration to create the result too? Dan's Related Posts:In Honour of Ada LovelaceTwo Very Incredible & Courageous WomenLessons Learned From a First Time AuthorAmidst Uncertainty the Inuksuk Surfaces"Oh, you’re one of those. You want to work anywhere, anytime."

A work team's productivity and performance are affected by the team's structural interdependence, and its team members' use of collaborative skills.

When I was 16 years old, I experienced the tragic and untimely death of a friend. Paul was a beautiful boy, full of charm, zeal and confidence. His alluring, Italian good looks had the girls swooning over his every move, no different perhaps than those today that fantasize about the lads from One Direction. He was that attractive and debonair. I was infinitely jealous. Between the ages of 12 and 15 in our mutual hometown, we were actually foes on differing competitive soccer teams and eventually high schools. Paul went to the rather large Catholic school, whereas I went to one of the much smaller public high schools. We competed on the soccer pitch several times a year. Because we were both midfielders, we saw a lot of one another. Whether it was when we battled one another through our high schools or through our spring and summer competitive teams — Sparta and Saltfleet — we were rather good enemies. Paul was a skilled dribbler. He also possessed a clinical finish. I was the controlling midfielder, trying to prevent him from doing ‘his thing’. We were an oxymoron. During the year we both turned 16, the unimaginable happened. Paul was asked by my coach at Sparta to join our club that season. The enemy was now amidst the camp. How could this be? It felt traitorous. It was as though George Harrison had just announced he was leaving The Beatles to join The Rolling Stones. But the Stones already had Keith Richards. That couldn’t be right. Something was amiss. During the initial moments of our first-ever practice together, the coach brought the two of us to the middle of the pitch. "Do you know why Paul is with our club now, Dan?" he asked with a bemusing twinkle in his eye that seemed to ironically become highlighted by his thick Scottish accent. Without waiting for either of us to answer — he was great at answering his own rhetorical questions — the coach suggested that, "Because together, you are going to make one another so much better." "Great," I thought to my pugnacious teenage self. "I suppose it’s time to start looking at other clubs for next year." But then I quickly had a second thought. "Maybe the crazy ‘If it’s not Scottish it’s crap’ sage elder is right," I cheekily thought to myself next. "Maybe he has a point." And he did. And it wasn’t degenerate. Over the course of the next two months, Sparta was a much better club. I became a much better player as well, working in tandem with Paul. He was more of an attacking midfielder whereas I was more of a punishing, "no one gets by me" defending midfielder, able to intercept oncoming balls (and players) to subsequently pick out teammates with counterattack passes. This new dynamic duo was working magnificently. Paul and I seamlessly cooperated and collaborated together to fortify a team that was already an excellent squad. In a word, it was ‘magic’. During one of those dog days of summer that signifies Southern Ontario in July, I received a telephone call from a mutual friend of ours — Kendall — asking if I was home. Given I answered the phone (and there were no mobile phones back then) Kendall asked me to stay at home and not venture anywhere. He wanted to come by the house. There was important news to deliver. Confused as I was, I agreed to sit tight. "Paul’s dead," Kendall shrieked as he came bursting through the side door of the house. "It was a boating accident, he’s gone," he continued. Incredulous as the news sounded, I burst into tears. How could this be? My enemy who had just become my soccer friend — my partner in a new form of teamwork — was no longer among us. What of his family? What of those swooning girls? What of our budding on-field friendship? Kendall was a much better friend to Paul than I ever was. Their history together started when they were both in the single digits of age. Kendall and I went to the funeral later that week together. It was awful. So much grief. So much crying. I think that’s the day I became a man. At least I started to knock on the door. The sadness was pervasive if not suffocating. It was one of the hardest and most emotional days of my life. It’s been almost thirty years since I’ve thought about Paul. You might say I forgot about him. How sad. Why is that? Why did I forget about Paul? Even as a prepubescent and subsequently pubescent lad, there was (and is) much to recall, much to remember, much to learn about Paul. For many of us however, sadly, there is anonymity after death. If perhaps you have contributed great ideas, inventions, literature, hope, music or discoveries during your lifetime, your relevance remains arguably perpetual to the world. William Shakespeare, Niels Bohr, Ernest Rutherford, Mother Theresa, John Lennon, Oprah Winfrey, Epicurus, Thomas Edison, Friedrich Nietzsche or Pablo Picasso need not worry about their anonymity in the afterlife. Heck, let’s even add Marilyn Monroe to the mix. Generations of people will be able to read about their contributions, for they are firmly ingrained in the consciousness of history ever after. What of the rest of us? What is our legacy? How might we be remembered? We’re still considered ‘old school’ in our home because the daily national newspaper is delivered to our front door. It may seem morbid but on Saturdays I tend to scan the obituaries. Typically there are no Rutherfords or Lennons or Winfreys. No, they’re always on a page separate from the obits. But there are oodles of Pauls. And all of those Pauls are people to learn from if we indeed take the time to remember how they touched us. Like snowflakes, humans descend in various shapes and sizes. We’re all unique. Some of those snowflakes are used to build snowmen. Others lie within the serenity of an open field, undisturbed until the warmth of spring peeks through. It’s not possible to remember every snowflake — thus, every human we come into contact with — but we ought to take the time to recall those that helped us to create some magic in our own lives. You need not read the obituaries, but you might attempt to begin recalling what you’ve learned from those that have passed on, who you’ve come into contact with. There is gold in those memories. Your family members, relatives and best friends are a given. How could you forget them? But what of that neighbour down the street who once helped you build a fence? What of the office mate that annoyed you, but always managed to find a way to compliment your PowerPoint presentations? How about the lady you used to buy your coffee from every day in the café kiosk? Who are the Pauls in your life? We are all snowflakes. We all eventually melt. It’s a physical inevitability. Rather obviously, we are all human, too. Paul was human. But I forgot about him. I let him mentally melt away. I shouldn’t have. He was a charming, glowing and unique snowflake. Upon a quiet moment of reflection this week, I realized I still have much to learn from him. His life may have been somewhat ephemeral, but that doesn’t mean he should melt into obscurity or obsolescence. Thank you Paul, I’ll be sure to pass on what I’ve learned from you to others. In the end, you did make me "so much better." Don’t let those who might not be considered within your inner circle or family melt away. Don’t simply rely on the famous either. There is so much to learn from every one of those snowflakes that come into your life. Don’t let there be anonymity after death. NOTE: Originally posted to The Huffington Post. Dan's Related Posts:Can Humanism Replace Capitalism?The Leadership Collapse of Manchester UnitedMy Employee Engagement Advice to a StrangerWhat I Learned About The Stigma Of My StigmaLeadership Lessons From Late Night King David Letterman

Patty McManus' white paper, "Beyond Feedback: Breaking the Vicious Cycle," explores a particular type of interpersonal workplace conflict that involves a complex dynamic. The tricky thing about some conflicts is that they can't be "fixed" by giving feedback.

I’ve witnessed it before. I’m certain I’ll witness it again. Someone is promoted to a senior leadership role. Deserved or not, everyone knew it was coming. She surrounds herself with familiar, friendly faces. Some call it nepotism. Words. They can be so funny, so revealing. Nepotism comes from the French word népotisme and from the Italian word nepotismo. The etymology informs us that nepotism is formed through a relationship, thus, there is a ‘relationship’ with the word nepotism to the English word ‘nephew’. Why? History tells us that there were so-called "nephews" of various Popes — who fathered illegitimate sons — for whom the Popes provided the boys with specific privileges and powers. Hence, nepotism. Surround yourself with like-minded ‘nephews’ and then assign plum positions via nepotism and something else comes into play. Groupthink. As Wikipedia informs us, groupthink is: A psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. When you combine nepotism with groupthink, the leader has entered into a new form of power. I like to refer to it as ‘(un)common sense’. In her 1979 piece, Power Failure in Management Circuits, Rosabeth Moss Kanter beautifully summarizes what becomes of leaders in an organization when their power is enhanced by new titles and positions: "What grows with organizational position in hierarchical levels is not necessarily the power to accomplish — productive power — but the power to punish, to prevent, to sell off, to reduce, to fire, all without appropriate concern for consequences. It is that kind of power — oppressive power — that we often say corrupts." We might suggest the leader has lost all common sense, as a result of this newfound power, aided and abetted by these acts of nepotism and groupthink. My friend, this is not a good thing. In the pursuit of power, many leaders believe it’s a good idea to adorn themselves with ‘horse blinkers’. (Also known as horse blinders.) These blinkers seem to come with instructions in which to invoke nepotism and groupthink. Despite every management article known to humankind suggesting leaders in new positions of power should be doing the exact opposite, there continues to be example after example of leaders who succumb to the blinkers. It’s bonkers. When power overthrows common sense, the organization splits into a dizzying array of cliques, camps and confusion. When power overthrows common sense, the hallways, water coolers, emails and conference calls become emblazoned by chit-chat that runs contrary to the organization’s true purpose. When power overthrows common sense, therein commences the demise of an engaged organization. I’m certain employees don’t want to be a part of it. That sentiment also includes me. __________ Dan Pontefract is the author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization. He’s finished writing his next book — DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work — which will publish November 10, 2015. Dan's Related Posts:What Should The Title Of My Next Book Be?That Decision Is Above My Pay-GradeConation: The Word of 2015Book Review of WORK RULES: Insights From Inside GoogleThe Collateral Damage of Selfish Leadership

Having gone through the process of publishing a book once before, I can honestly say one of the most rewarding experiences is when the book cover is finalized. It’s that time, again. Releasing November 10, 2015 … DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work. I hope you like it. (I also hope you might read it, too.) Dan's Related Posts:My Next Book Has A Title And A Publish DateAnnouncing the Full Book Cover Jacket of Flat ArmyCalling Frederic Laloux Of Reinventing OrganizationsAnnouncing the Front Cover of Flat ArmyWhen Power Overthrows Common Sense

Collaboration is a critical driver in business today, particularly if your business is global and your teams are far-flung. New technologies are promising, but the simple truth is technology doesn't collaborate, people do. What special methods do your people have to collaborate successfully?

I nearly choked to death this morning, while chomping away on my cereal. The headline from Harvard Business Review read, Why "Company Culture" Is a Misleading Term. While wiping off the milk from my iPad, I began to read on. "Organizational culture is assumed to be important to making sure that employees are happy and productivity is good. At the same time, the concept, meaning, and function of culture rarely garners much thought." WHAT? At this point, I stopped eating the cereal for fear of a Heimlich Maneuver in my immediate future, most likely performed by a scrawny but increasingly concerned 9 year-old. The author of the piece — Dr. John Traphagan, professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Texas at Austin — seems to have crossed his wires throughout the piece. I’m here to defend the term, "Company Culture". But first, a bit of a background to the author. John’s LinkedIn profile suggests he is "a cultural anthropologist with over 15 years of experience in research and teaching" where he has been "consulting with government agencies and industry and working with the media on issues related to Japanese culture and society." Is there no "company culture" present in Japan? His biography page at The University of Texas at Austin poses further questions for me. Aside from the grammatical/spelling error, John states the following: Dr. Traphagan’s research interests center on the relatinoship between culture and science.  His past work has focused largely on medical concepts and religion in Japan.  Currently, his primary research focuses on the application of anthropological ideas within the field of astrobiology.   Aside from me wondering what his recent research focus on astrobiology has to do with "company culture", I’d like to argue that there is indeed a relationship between culture and science, much like there is one between culture and the company. When Dr. Traphagan suggests "the concept, meaning, and function of culture rarely garners much thought" and that "most of us give very little thought to what that term means and how its use influences behavior and thought within organizations" he is flat wrong. Three years ago, Greg Smith — a high-ranking employee at Goldman Sachs at the time — penned a rather influential (if not controversial, for some) editorial to The New York Times. In it, he opined: "Culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years." He’s right. Greg eloquently depicted what true "company culture" ought to be about. Concepts such as teamwork, integrity, humility and finding the processes, behaviours and mechanisms inside the company to put your ‘customers first’ is indeed what true "company culture" is all about. I surface the editorial from Greg because he went on later to describe how the culture had evaporated at Goldman Sachs, leading to his resignation. "I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief," he continued. "Get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons. People who care only about making money will not sustain this firm — or the trust of its clients — for very much longer." It was a bit of a personal vendetta against his employer, but it was a bit of a wake-up call for senior leaders at Goldman Sachs, too. Whether or not executives had forgotten about their "company culture" at Goldman Sachs, ever since Greg’s whistle-blower letter of sorts, the company has regained (and augmented) their internal operating composure and are (again) thinking and acting on their company culture. It’s but one example, but Dr. Traphagan’s assertion that organizations aren’t giving much thought to "company culture" is balderdash. Alan Mulally, former President and CEO of Ford, provides us with another example. Saddled by an economic crisis in 2009 just short of the 1929 depression, he worked extremely hard to turn around the company and avert complete financial ruin. One of several strategies he introduced was something called ONE FORD. Mulally knew not only were the stakes high for his company’s survival, he had an entire workforce (and industry) worried sick. This was not the time to invoke any sort of "superhero syndrome" … it was an opportunity to fix the "company culture" at Ford in order to ensure the company actually survived. ONE FORD was the plan-on-a-page quest introduced to employees — and external stakeholders thereafter — that invoked teamwork, collaboration and cooperation. Introduced as a graphic to the entire organization, the left side contained three defining statements (ONE TEAM, ONE PLAN, ONE GOAL) that outlined "people working together" and an "exciting viable Ford for all". The emphasis Mulally introduced in a time of crisis centred on the redefinition of "company culture". On the right side of the graphic, Mulally used the word Ford as an acronym further detailing how they would recover from the economic meltdown they were facing. The details included: Foster Functional and Technical Excellence Own Working Together Role Model Ford Values Deliver Results This is the epitome of "company culture" and it helped turn the tables of bankruptcy at Ford, while improving morale and so on. Perhaps the example at Ford and with Alan Mulally in particular demonstrates causality with research conducted by Stanford University’s Charles A. O’Reilly III and his peers. They surfaced evidence that "company culture" will often reflect the personality of its CEO. In turn, the CEO creates a significant impact on the performance of the company itself. Do you think, therefore, that a CEO isn’t thinking about culture if his or her behaviour might affect the bottom line? Dr. Traphagan further asserts that, "We need to stop using the term "culture" to talk about what’s going on in our organizations," in part because, "Corporations and other organizations do not have cultures; they have philosophies and ideologies that form a process in which there is a constant discourse about the nature and expression of values, beliefs, practices, ideas, and goals." Is that so? Deloitte suggests "employee engagement and culture issues exploded onto the scene, rising to become the no. 1 challenge companies face around the world" in research it released earlier in 2015. If that is the case, how is it that senior leaders are looking the other way when it comes to "company culture", as Dr. Traphagan is blindly suggesting. How is it that corporations and other organizations "do not have cultures" if it has become the number one issue that needs to be addressed, according to CEO’s and senior leaders? In 2007, levels of employee engagement at TELUS (Canada’s fastest-growing national telecommunications company, with $12 billion of annual revenue and 13.7 million customer connections) sat at 53%. I know what "company culture" is, and I know how important it is because I joined TELUS from SAP the following year, in 2008. That year began a quest by the company to make the shift from "good to great" by focusing on all facets of its "company culture" in order to indeed put its valued "customers first". Through the introduction of "company culture" pillars such as Bravo (a recognition program), We Give Where We Live (a community investment and philanthropy mission), TELUS Leadership Philosophy (an open behavioural leadership model for all 43,000+ employees in eight countries), Connected Learning (a formal, informal, social learning model), Habitat Social (a collaboration technology platform), and of course Customers First (a seismic shift in the way TELUS interacts, listens and conducts business with its customers) employee engagement rose to 85% and a multitude of business and customer metrics rose in concert. Whether the organization is Goldman Sachs, Ford or TELUS, you can rest assured Dr. Traphagan that "company culture" is as important an issue as anything in the organization these days. Some firms are succeeding better than others. (as is evidence from the woeful state of employee engagement across the world) But the term "company culture" should not be retired. You state that we, "need to develop a way of talking that captures the discursive nature of group behavior and to think in terms of all groups as processes that shape and are shaped by individuals." An organization need not forego "company culture"; it simply ought to work with its employees to craft common operating principles (behaviours, tools, processes, and so on) that connects the entire organization as one. Sub-cultures in varying geographies or countries is rather obvious. In fact, it should be encouraged. But for organizations to succeed in the 21st century there needs to be a "company culture" such that the employees and its leaders are working together under a common language — a unified DNA — to do as Peter Drucker stated when on the topic of defining the purpose of business, which is, "To create a customer." Dropping the term "culture" from the lexicon of organizational and corporate consulting and research would be a horrible step to take. It’s perhaps as short-sighted as me eating cereal again over my iPad while reading about such a concept. Originally posted to Forbes. __________ Dan Pontefract is the author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization and is Chief Envisioner at TELUS Transformation Office. His next book, DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work, will publish November 10, 2015. Dan's Related Posts:If Your Enterprise Social Network Is A Ghost Town It’s Probably Due To Your…Rethinking the Work of LeadershipIn Answer To Your Questions About FLAT ARMYApparently, Organizational Culture is CrapCan Humanism Replace Capitalism?

I’ve been eagerly awaiting this book for some time. Not in the literal sense. After all, Amazon delivered a hardcopy version to my front door in what must have been 37 seconds. No, I’m referring to my anticipation in a more figurative way. Nine years ago, Laszlo Bock became head of People Operations at Google. Nine days ago, Laszlo’s book, Work Rules! Insights From Inside Google, was delivered to my home by a man clad entirely in brown. My wait was over, and it was now time to sink my teeth into the book that Daniel Coyle calls, "an all-access backstage pass to one of the smartest organizations on the planet." High praise indeed. Did it measure up? Was the book a playbook of sorts for others to learn from, and follow? Google has won just about every award imaginable when it comes to "great places to work" and if there was one book that might help everyone understand why, I was hoping it would be Laszlo Bock’s. By page 11 we were on the right track. Bock writes: The most talented people on the planet are increasingly physically mobile, increasingly connected through technology, and-importantly-increasingly discoverable by employers. I was increasingly enjoying my new book purchase. He continues: This global cadre want to be in high-freedom companies, and talent will flow to those companies. And leaders who build the right kind of environments will be magnets for the most talented people on the planet. These two paragraphs encapsulate the overarching thought leadership found throughout the book. Laszlo defends the rights of employees, arguing persuasively that they deserve to "run the asylum" - a place of refuge, as he reminds us. Employees are smart and they need not be coddled, commanded or controlled by power monger managers. "This is why we (Google)," he writes, "take as much power away from managers as we can." Laszlo (and Google) believe employees will seek out organizations that provide an open, collaborative and innovative environment, so why not make the organizational culture one where "power" is held by the masses versus the few. More importantly, perhaps, Bock asserts throughout the book that when employees are given freedom, "they will surprise, delight and amaze you." The word "freedom" is arguably the subliminal message hidden within the book. Indeed, Laszlo pushes you to think about reshaping your organization as a "high-freedom environment." A perfect example is surfaced when on the topic of "code health." As an engineering company, Google has thousands of engineers and millions of lines of software code. "We could have set company-wide goals for code health," Bock writes, "or our CEO could have just mandated that everyone had to focus on code health for the next month." A high-freedom environment doesn’t mandate from above, nor does it control the masses. It empowers. It uses the community of employees to further fuel the business. If you’re an innovation company, as Google is, should the ideas come from the C-Suite? In parallel, should an organization’s ideas on how to run the business come from the C-Suite only as well? In the case of "code health", Laszlo recalls how a group of engineers got together (on their own) to sort out a means to remedying the problem of "code health". This manifested after a problem was highlighted in their internal feedback and engagement survey, called "Googlegeist." As a result of the employees getting together, a number of opportunities for improvement were brainstormed and eventually implemented across Google, including Tech Talks, embedding "code health" into performance management practices and promotions, as well as "Citizenship Awards," which were inaugurated to recognize peers and leaders of healthy software code. The result? Engineers at Google are now 34% "more confident that time spent improving code health will be rewarded." It’s but one example of many that Bock highlights around what I thought to be the underlying message of "high-freedom environment." But what about those actual Google Work Rules? There are fourteen chapters in the book, where the rules are nested. Bock runs the gamut, waxing lyrical through 370 pages on traditional HR topics such as compensation, recruitment, learning and performance management and non-traditional (to some) rules on concepts such as culture, health, community and what I felt to be a very refreshing rule and chapter, "It’s Not All Rainbows and Unicorns." Bock uses this chapter to highlight the fact Google (and any organization) is going to make mistakes. The chapter is replete with examples of human misbehaviour (at Google, no less) that have to do with entitlements, performance, values, ethics and transparency. In the end, Bock reminds the reader that humans are prone to mistakes, but "it’s in the organizations with the strongest values" where mistakes are learned from, not used as a basis for shutting down the "high-freedom environment" quest. It’s a wonderful rule, one that reminds me of a similar thought we’ve embedded into our culture at TELUS, echoed by our Executive Chair, Darren Entwistle: "There is tuition value in mistakes." The book is a true masterpiece. There are boatloads of stories from within Google, as well as great anecdotes from other organizations and other experiences that Laszlo has witnessed. There is data (but not too much data) and no less than 259 references. The rules make such sense, I can see the book becoming a key reading in MBA programs going forward. The final gem from the book is in fact the final chapter, " What You Can Do Starting Tomorrow." If you’re looking for a quick summary guide on ten steps (and a quick summary of the Work Rules!) that can potentially transform your organization, team or workplace, Bock highlights them here, including: 1. Give your work meaning. I couldn’t agree more, as Bock writes, "everyone wants their work to have purpose." 2. Trust your people. Trust is one of the 15 leadership attributes I wrote about in FLAT ARMY, so once again, I’m in complete agreement with Laszlo. 3. Hire only people who are better than you. And importantly, "hire by committee." 4. Don’t confuse development with managing performance. Development is an ongoing conversation, not an annual measurement. 5. Focus on the two tails. Bock believes the organization should focus on the very, very good (power law distribution theory) and the very, very bad. For the good, learn everything you can from them. For the bad, help them learn, refocus or if all else fails, exit them. 6. Be frugal and generous. Not everything has to cost money, from a development, learning, inspirational perspective. 7. Pay unfairly. 90% or more of the value on your teams comes from the top 10%, so pay them accordingly. (A new-ish take on the Pareto Principle aided by the "power law" distribution theory.) 8. Nudge. In essence, be a pest such that you are pushing collaborative, sharing behaviour. 9. Manage the rising expectations. There is tuition value in mistakes. 10. Enjoy! And then go back to No. 1 and start again. "Building a great culture and environment requires constant learning and renewal." If there is one aspect in the book that I felt was missing, it was highlighted by a story Laszlo surfaced regarding Google’s performance management system. It wasn’t my concern about performance management itself (he deftly depicts the changes Google made to performance management, in Chapter 7), it was how Bock retold a story when he had to ask his assistant at 6pm on a Thursday to arrange meetings so he could speak to forty different managers about the pending performance management changes. The meetings were to occur that same night. It’s a minor point, but perhaps in a follow-up book, Laszlo could highlight how life-work balance and time management principles are demonstrated by him, and at Google in general. In a world where employees are constantly being asked to do "more with less", coupled by increasing demands on their time through projects, requests and of course "all things digital" like email and social, I was left wondering how the concept of "time" is handled by Laszlo and Google. I once wrote a post entitled, "Why I’d Work With Google’s Laszlo Bock". As I devoured WORK RULES!, I kept thinking about that post. It’s still true. Laszlo is a rare breed, and I believe it behooves you to pick up a copy and read for yourself what a role model he has become for leaders of any stripe, of any level, in any organization. My summary? Work Rules! rules. __________ Dan Pontefract is the author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization and is Chief Envisioner at TELUS Transformation Office. His next book, DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work, will publish November 10, 2015. Dan's Related Posts:Why I’d Work With Google’s Laszlo Bock (one day)Selling Yourself & Your Ideas is the New 20 Percent TimeIf Your Enterprise Social Network Is A Ghost Town It’s Probably Due To Your…Going Forward to the Past: Management Yahooliganism & No Longer Working From HomeWaxing Lyrical On Leadership, Engagement, Purpose & Innovation

May 3, 1915 was the day in which society’s (arguably) most famous wartime poem was written. John McCrae, author of In Flanders Fields, had witnessed (the previous day) the loss of his very good friend, Alexis Helmer, killed by German shelling. The previous weeks, McCrae — a doctor tasked with the responsibility of assisting WWI soldiers wounded in action under unimaginable scenes of horror and bloodshed- attended to the bodies of hundreds of others. The sights were gruesome. The pressure exerted on McCrae must have been like affixing your own head into a vice grip and turning the crank inward. But In Flanders Fields is not only a classic poem, it’s an example of channeling one’s emotions, beliefs and hopes into art, reconciling for others to ideally learn from. I’m forever moved by In Flanders Fields. Perhaps this is why I write myself; to channel my emotions, beliefs and hopes into art, reconciling for others to ideally learn from. A copy of the poem is placed to the left of our front door foyer. Has been for many, many years. There is not a day that goes by where I don’t think about John McCrae and his poem. One hundred years later, I am morally indebted to a man I never met. Let art forever teach compassion for compassion is the beginning of our humanity. ___________ In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. Dan's Related Posts:LeisureFlat Army Book Launch Party … A Sea of HumanityTerry Fox, My HeroPlease Don’t Let There Be Anonymity After DeathWhat I Learned About The Stigma Of My Stigma

In this LeaderLens webinar, Ashley Welch interviews Elana Yonah, co-founder of RISE, who shared her perspective on "Virtual Collaboration: Best Practices for Global Teams."

When Tony Hsieh won the prestigious ACM Programming Contest in 1993, you just knew he was going to do something great with his life. Check out the problem set he and his two teammates had to solve, and you get an acute understanding of just how smart he is. Three years later, he founded LinkExchange — an online advertising network incorporating the use of banner ads — and promptly sold it to Microsoft in 1998 for $265 million. Not too shabby. After selling LinkExchange, Tony founded an incubator and investment firm with his friend Alfred Lin (called Venture Frogs), where one of the first investment bets made was on a little online shoe selling company you might have heard of. It’s called Zappos. A couple of months later, the uber smart 27-year old Hsieh joined the company as its CEO and, well, the rest is history. Today, Zappos is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon (having been acquired for $1.2 billion in 2009) and its roughly 1,500 employees, headquartered in Las Vegas, produce in excess of $2 billion in revenues annually. The company diversified its portfolio and now sells not only shoes, but all sorts of clothing for men, women and children. But how does this company, with less than 2,000 employees, continue to dominate the mainstream and social media headlines? After all, there are many other companies selling clothes and shoes online. Why does Zappos seem as though it has a stranglehold on press hits and mentions? In a word, it’s all about "culture." Zappos is famous for establishing the bar when it comes to putting its customers first, aided and abetted by an engaged and happy workforce. The company has seemingly defined the causal link between a happy workforce and an equally balanced "purpose with profit" bottom line. The company’s tagline and overarching ethos is to "Deliver Wow" and since 1999, it has done so in spades, serving millions of customers across the globe. Barry Glassman does a fantastic job on FORBES describing the client experience at Zappos. I visited Zappos’ headquarters earlier this year, partaking in a walkabout at their new downtown Las Vegas facilities. As you enter the building you’re inundated with "hellos." Everywhere you look, people are smiling and when your eyes intersect theirs, it’s the friendliest smile you’ve ever received. In one corner, someone is playing a ukulele. In another, people mingle about in a conference room that is literally blinking with fun, coolness and family-like values. Their collaborative mindset is infectious, one that encourages everyone to scale the culture. Positivity is ubiquitous. It’s not up to Tony or any singular team to "deliver wow"; it’s the responsibility of every Zappos taem member. For example, every employee is given the opportunity to issue a $50 "co-worker bonus award" each month to one of their deserving colleagues. It’s an act of recognition, but it’s the opportunity for all Zappos employees to scale the culture. Employees are limited to sending one award per month, but there is no limit on the number of monthly awards an employee can receive. Culture can grow in other ways, too. The cafeteria is a great example. Instead of the "Z Cafe" being simply a place to order food and grab a cappuccino, the company placed its "Mainframe Zappos Tech Support" center in the middle of "Z Cafe," not banishing it to the basement where many other organizations house similar IT outfits. Zappos also takes their role in the community very seriously. On Thanksgiving, 2014, the company opened its doors and fed over 1,000 Las Vegas families, also giving away shoes and socks to anyone that needed a new pair. It doesn’t have to, but the company’s financial and time contributions help foster a culture that is putting purpose alongside profit. Operationally, approximately 600 of the employees are part of CLT - Customer Loyalty Team - where they answer between 5,000 and 10,000 calls, emails and webchat sessions every day. So that everyone knows what it likes to "deliver wow," every single employee will contribute 10 hours of time to the CLT each year. This culture building act helps to absorb increased contact time requirements during the busy holiday seasons but it also helps those in non-call-center roles to reengage with the customer and those in the CLT itself. Overall, Zappos has an outstanding retention record, particularly given more than one-third of the employees are CLT agents solving customer problems and taking sales orders. When I asked my Zappos tour guide about exit statistics at the company, only 13% leave Zappos on a voluntary basis annually, whereas 7% are let go on an involuntary basis for various reasons. That works out to about 300 new Zappos employees being hired on an annual basis, and amazingly, there are over 30,000 resumes submitted each year to Zappos recruitment for those 300 roles. Clearly the company’s culture is not only doing wonderful things for its long-standing employees, customers and the community, it has infiltrated the lexicon of everyday people such that 30,000 people a year put their hand up and say, "Can I please please please work at Zappos." Wow! But recently, the company has been creating headlines that run somewhat counter to its first decade and half of existence. The "wow" has begun to feel a bit like "oh wow"-and not in a good way. We can trace some of the troubling headlines and anecdotes to the company’s recent transition to an organizational design model known as Holacracy®. Holacracy? Yes, the registered trademark symbol is necessary. Crazy as it sounds, Holacracy — as an organizational design model — is trademarked (irony point one). In a nutshell, Holacracy is an organizational structure — initially devised by self-described "recovering CEO" Brian Robertson of HolacracyOne — that purports to do the following: Holacracy is a distributed authority system - a set of "rules of the game" that bake empowerment into the core of the organization. Unlike conventional top-down or progressive bottom-up approaches, it integrates the benefits of both without relying on parental heroic leaders. Everyone becomes a leader of their roles and a follower of others’, processing tensions with real authority and real responsibility, through dynamic governance and transparent operations. Holacracy is depicted as a way to operate an organization without the classic "command and control" dogma found in many of today’s organizations. I think anyone would be a fan of eliminating "command and control," so there are merits to the model simply on that basis alone. It even has a constitution you are urged to follow. At the end of 2013, Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh (never one to remain stagnant with the organization - and always trying to ensure the Zappos culture is pushing the ways in which to "deliver wow") held a town hall meeting to inform the fine folks who work there that their current organizational structure was being tossed in favour of Holacracy by the end of 2014. The company ran a pilot in 2013 with 150 or so employees. It worked so well Tony decided to (eventually) scrap his CEO title and all Zappos employees would do the same with their own titles under Holacracy. Even Twitter co-founder Evan Williams has implemented Holacracy at his new(ish) venture, Medium. But for Zappos, things seem to have become a wee bit complicated in the full adoption of Holacracy. On the surface, it doesn’t look as though everyone is welcoming the new organizational operating model. As the Holacracy pilot concluded at Zappos, the "new" organizational model was to be fully implemented to begin the 2015 year. Some three months into 2015, however, Tony issued a 4,552 word email to Zappos employees that contained three main messages: We aren’t where we should be with the shift to Holacracy; We aren’t giving up on Holacracy - in fact, we’re doubling-down on our efforts; If you’re not on the Holacracy bus by April 30, get out. What’s puzzling to me (irony point two) is that Tony had to issue the email at all. Wasn’t this the culture of an organization that everyone wants to work at? Wasn’t this the culture of an organization where customers consistently rave about their "wow" experiences? Wasn’t this the culture of an organization that equally serves purpose with profit, relentlessly focusing on the customer experience? Quite simply, wasn’t this the culture of an organization that had figured out the link between an engaged workforce and a "purpose with profit" bottom line? By April 30 (deadline day for those to get on the Holacracy bus), 210 Zappos employees took up Tony’s new "offer" and accepted a severance package of at least three months in wages as well as benefits. To put things into perspective, 14% of the Zappos workforce left on April 30, essentially matching their annual voluntary attrition rate in one day. I don’t know about you, but when 14% of my organization leaves in one day, there is something amiss if not awry. When I was on my tour at Zappos earlier in 2015, I brought up Holacracy on several occasions with various employees I came into contact with. "Change is good," was often cited but you could smell the awkwardness that Holacracy was causing. (And my experience at Zappos was several weeks before Tony’s long email.) The organization seems nonplussed about the number of exits. John Bunch, the Zappos employee who is leading the company’s transition to Holacracy said, "Whatever the number of people who took the offer was the right number as they made the decision that was right for them and right for Zappos." But shouldn’t the company be worried? Embedded inside Tony’s late March email missive was a reference to a book by Belgian consultant Frederic Laloux, Reinventing Organizations: A Guide to Creating Organizations Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness. Coincidentally, I had begun reading the book in early March, so the timing of Tony’s email was impeccable. Through the use of several case studies, Laloux works his way through a series of organizational structures which, in his view, are representations of different and historical organizational designs. Each type has been branded as a colour. For example, a "Red" organization (what he also coins "impulsive") was formed some 10,000 years ago, one that is led by a "power chief" who is ruthless and uses fear as the motivating glue in all operations. Authority in this case is very commanding, citing historical examples like tribes and more recent examples like the Mafia and street gangs as "Red" organizations. He used the wolf pack as a guiding metaphor to depict these types of firms. A "Green" organization (coined "pluralistic" by Laloux) focuses on empowerment and values-driven culture. The guiding metaphor for a green organization as described by Laloux is "family." He even cites Zappos as a perfect example of a Green-pluralistic organization in the book (page 175). But the crux of Laloux’s thesis is that organizations should reinvent themselves toward a "Teal" colour — the evolutionary model, as he describes. Evolutionary-Teal organizations reveal three breakthroughs: Self-management: operate effectively with a system based on peer relationships, without the need for either hierarchy or consensus. Wholeness: develop a consistent set of practices that invite us to reclaim our inner wholeness and bring all of who we are to work. Evolutionary purpose: seen as having a life and sense of direction on their own — members are invited to listen in and understand what the organization wants to become, what purpose it wants to serve. Personally, I found the book to be reverse engineered. Dave Snowden went further, and referred to it as, "the most trivial management book I had read in a long time." The case studies used did seem to define Laloux’s so-called "Evolutionary-Teal" organization rather well, but self-management, wholeness and evolutionary purpose as a basis for business reeks of cultist cuteness, not an organizational design model that delivers both profit and purpose. Any organization looking to shift to "Teal" might want to first start with their existing operating culture. What types of attributes are embedded into existing leadership practices and models? Should they be redefined? How do teams operate with one another? How do leaders treat their employees? Their customers? What systems and processes are in place to expedite ideation? What frameworks and technologies are used for employees to collaborate with one another? It’s no secret millions of employees remain disengaged, if not disenfranchised at their places of work. But for an organization to shift from "command and control" to "evolutionary-teal" misses the chance to create a more engaging, connected and collaborative organization with existing structures. Moving from a very hierarchical and "command and control" environment to the Teal colour is not for the faint of heart. In terms of Laloux’s book, I found it very difficult to envision companies in today’s ultra-competitive and stock-market centered world to shift to such an operating model. Noble? Yes. Practical? Not at all. This brings me back to Zappos. Tony Hsieh mentioned in his long email to employees that he had discussed the book with the Reinventing Organizations author himself over a Skype call. He encapsulates his discussion with Laloux into two main points, as a basis for introducing Holacracy and self-based management. The first centers around pressure: We need to figure out what the antibodies are for when a small number employee take advantage of the freedom gained from being in a no-manager organization, or else it will demoralize the other employees. He [Laloux] said that in general, research has shown that peer-pressure based systems work the best. For certain types of job functions where there are easy metrics to measure performance, a public leaderboard ranking will naturally create peer pressure by showing which teams are performing and which aren’t. If I’m reading between the lines, in order to successfully implement Holacracy, the organization has to simultaneously introduce a public shaming system (akin to wearing a Scarlet Letter) so employees feel the pressure to perform. That seems rather odd to me. I don’t see it in any way, shape or form as ‘culture building’. In fact, I think it’s the exact opposite. The second point Tony addresses in his conversation with Laloux centers around conflict resolution: Conflict resolution starts with the expectation that employees are responsible for taking the first step and having a 1:1 conversation with whomever they are having a conflict with (instead of going to their manager for example). He [Laloux] said the most important thing is the need to have a strong conflict resolution process clearly communicated and clearly understood by everyone so employees know what to do. That seems sensible to me, but what happens when it involves some form of harassment? Or what if an employee isn’t pulling his weight in the call center (e.g. Jim never volunteers for the call-center shifts on Thanksgiving or Christmas Eve) and claims it’s his right to work whenever he feels like it? But what I don’t fully understand revolves around the point of motive. What was the motive of Zappos (or Tony) to shift toward Holacracy and a completely self-managed operating structure in the first place? Were there operating processes that were inhibiting Zappos’ quest to "deliver wow"? Were there struggles in their distribution channels, marketing plans, Customer Loyalty Team efforts or elsewhere that aren’t documented? Did the company feel as though the culture was suffering, and thus a reinvention was necessary? Perhaps there is a clue in the closing words of Tony’s email: Like all the bold steps we’ve done in the past, it feels a little scary, but it also feels like exactly the type of thing that only a company such as Zappos would dare to attempt at this scale. If an organization decides to become self-organizing — where peer-to-peer coaching is the organizational model, meetings are ad hoc, voluntary task forces comprise the operating mechanism and decisions are fully decentralized — does it make sense to issue a 4,552 word edict, forcing those employees who have helped to build up the "deliver wow" culture over time to leave the very place they’ve called their professional home? In essence, is it "change for the sake of change" or is there some underlying business reason for the shift? In defense, Zappos did release a statement on April  8, 2015 indicating "Holacracy is one of the many tools we plan on using to reach our destination," and "our true journey is to becoming a fully self-managing organization that culminates in making our work more productive, fulfilling and meaningful." There isn’t a single employee on the planet who doesn’t yearn for a more "productive, fulfilling and meaningful" place of work, but I wonder aloud whether the hierarchical decision to enforce Holacracy isn’t (irony point three) potentially ruining the great culture that was carefully constructed over its relatively short tenure. Will the company continue to ‘wow’ us all? I know I’m going to watch eagerly in anticipation that Tony Hsieh — winner of the ACM Programming Contest in 1993 — will prove us all wrong, once again. I hope his "bet everything on Holacracy" decision works out for him, Zappos and the customers it serves. Now that will be a "wow" moment, indeed. Originally published to FORBES. __________ Dan Pontefract is the author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization and is Chief Envisioner at TELUS Transformation Office. His next book, DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work, will publish November 10, 2015. Dan's Related Posts:Holacracy Is Not The Answer To Your Employee Disengagement IssuesCalling Frederic Laloux Of Reinventing OrganizationsWaxing Lyrical On Leadership, Engagement, Purpose & InnovationIf Your Enterprise Social Network Is A Ghost Town It’s Probably Due To Your…There Is Nothing Wrong With The Term ‘Company Culture’

A LeaderLens webinar hosted by Demetra Anagnostopoulo. She was joined by Mike Woodard to discuss the topic, "Insights to Action: Leaders Thinking Strategically."

Ashley Welch interviewed Ken Pucker on the topic of "Leadership, Investors, and the Triple Bottom Line." What does it mean to lead in an organization committed to doing well financially, socially, and environmentally? What are the trade-offs and complexities?

Dropping various objects off of buildings as high as the sky is tall just might be the very definition of stupid. But it’s so much fun, too. Ever witnessed a melon explode into a million pieces, dropped onto the concrete sidewalk from a balcony several stories above ground? The sound is spectacular. Unique even. Like Johnny Cash’s singing. Or Prince Charles’ ears. But the mushroom cloud of red and green watermelon bits — interspersed by speckled black seeds — that creates a radial symmetry of organic beauty is something only Van Gogh or Picasso could dream up. It’s perhaps the first real example of sidewalk art. David Letterman taught me that. I know, most of you might think it’s an immature, disrespectful and utterly foolish act to drop items off of a roof or balcony, solely for entertainment purposes. And you’re probably right. In hindsight, it is rather dumb. And that’s how many of you will remember David Letterman. He was Late Night’s buffoon. He was "that guy" who used to drop buckets of paint, oversized rocks or televisions off various New York building roofs to see what might happen. He adorned a velcro suit, hurled himself onto a wall to see if he might stick. He terrorized patrons at fast food restaurant drive-thrus just to make fun of their orders. You thought he was obnoxious. "What an idiot," you may have muttered when hearing of his antics. You vouched never to watch him again. He was "that guy" who might otherwise have been coined a curmudgeon. Cantankerous, perhaps. You had heard of the way he interacted and interviewed some of his guests. "Why is he so mad," you asked a friend. Dave had an edge, for certain. In fact, it was his sharp, intense and at times pointed questioning and conversations that also sent you fleeing for the remote control. Just ask Paris Hilton. "I like the other guy," you exclaimed to your spouse. "You know, the friendlier one with the big chin." He was "that guy" who rather famously — or should it be infamously — started off the 1995 Oscars telecast with the Oprah-Uma joke. I found it hilarious, but they didn’t. But "that guy" — in his final week as a late night television host — deserves more than your scorn and scrapheap castoff. I’m here to say "Thank You, David Letterman." I’m here to illustrate that there are leadership lessons to learn from television’s last remaining true broadcaster. More importantly perhaps, I want you (David Letterman) to know how much I’ve personally learned from you over the many years of watching your late night zaniness. 1. Self-Deprecation Over the course of 6,028 shows and interviews with some 19,932 guests, you never once made it about "David Letterman." In fact, the most enduring and endearing characteristic was an unending swarm of self-deprecation. Whether for the show itself, or your own self-described foibles and idiosyncrasies, the predominant portion of guests were put at ease by your goof-ball, aw shucks, I’m an idiot demeanor. This sort of behaviour puts people at ease. I’ve learned to use a self-deprecating style in many of my interactions, most notably as a leader of people. 2. Honesty There’s a certain element to being a late night television talk show host where honesty is expected. It’s not as though you could have lied about attending the Department of Radio and Television at Ball State University. But when you opened up to a live audience (and millions of viewers on television) about extortion attempts and acts of infidelity, well…that’s about as honest as things can get. In the same vein, you never faked your way through an interview or comedy bit. If the guest wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer — hello Justin Bieber — you wouldn’t mince words, nor play down to their lack of intelligence. You were honest, you remained you, and that’s how I learned to remain comfortable in my own skin. 3. Public Love Although I’m 25 years younger than you, we had our first child at the same time. You’re a late night television talk show host. I’m not. But that didn’t stop you from demonstrating how proud you were — how much love you had developed — when your son, Harry, was born. Subsequently, Harry’s name, pictures and even appearances on the show surfaced over the years. It was PDAs (public displays of affection) non-stop. The best? Publicly quizzing your guests on parenthood tips, so you could become a better parent. (At least that’s how you masked the questions.) The public affection you showed for your precious mother was also infectious. As a result, I’ve learned not to be afraid to say in public, "I love my kids and wife and family." 4. Involving Others I feel as though you might have been a part of the "math club" or some other high school team that often (and inappropriately) gets made fun of during the teenage years. Your penchant for involving others — particularly the regular people of society — was first-class. Stagehands like Biff, Pat, Kenny, Tony and Harold always had a role to play on your shows. In the neighbouring community, you’d involve "normal" citizens like Rupert, Mujibur or Sirajul as part of the show. I learned that community is important, and much like in sports it’s the crest on the front not the name on the back that we all play for. 5. Sincerity You ran a comedy show. That didn’t stop you from being sincere. You presented flowers for Julie Roberts and other guests. You showed deep concern for peace when discussing political and worldly issues with former or current presidents and elected officials. After 9/11 — arguably your sincerest shows ever — you were the capstone of emotional unity. When you returned from quintuple bypass heart surgery, you invited the doctors and nurses that both saved your life, and took care of your recovery. You taught me to never forget those that assist you in life. I’m 43 years old, and am blessed to have "married up," now co-parenting a 12, 10 and 8 year old. I met you — David Letterman — well before I ever met my infinitely better half. I’ve known you for more than half of my life, and through this one-sided relationship, I’ve learned to laugh, love, loathe, lead and live. We’ll never meet. But I wanted you to know that although I was only one of the millions of people who learned from your zaniness and your love of life, it has meant a great deal to many of us. Thank you, David Letterman. Your only leadership mistake? You really should have dropped Howard Stern off of those buildings instead of the melons. In fact, you picked the wrong melon. NOTE: Cross-posted to Forbes and The Huffington Post. __________ Dan Pontefract is the author of FLAT ARMY: Creating a Connected and Engaged Organization and is Chief Envisioner at TELUS Transformation Office. His next book, DUAL PURPOSE: Redefining the Meaning of Work, will publish November 10, 2015. Dan's Related Posts:What I Learned From My Daughter About Decision MakingGoodbye Team of Five YearsDear Mister Dylan Benson, you are the Definition of ClassLessons Learned From a First Time Author5 Ways to Become Less Collaborative at Work

In this LeaderLens webinar, Ashley spoke with Karlin Sloan -- author, speaker, and CEO.