Sustainable Performance Reviews

On the thread of performance reviews, it occurred to me that one key area in which sustainability is often not embedded in the organization is in the performance review.

Think about it, if your performance review is the demotivating debacle described in my previous post, in terms of valuing and respecting resources it is a barrier to building a sustainable organization. The workforce and even the executives are trapped in a Dilbert like world of double entendre, undiscussable issues and tragicomedy. This is the waste generating opposite of generating value, developing capacity for innovation & implementation and building resilience & responsiveness-let alone holding a space for people to be whole and develop presence.

So…what would sustainable performance reviews look like? In my thinking they would:

•  Inquire into the health of the employee. How are you doing in this organization? How is your manager / the organization doing for you? What do you do to take care of your self? How could your manager / the organization take better care of you?
• Have a clearly designed, defined and operable approach to sustainability. This should be done in a way that engages “the whole system” of internal and external stakeholders to help the organization and leaders see what needs to be done, who needs to do it and what competencies and capacities are necessary to make it happen at all levels of the organization.
• Make the employee a partner in sustaining the organization. What are you doing to sustain and grow this organization? How well is this organization helping you sustain your self and your family? What would it take for you and us to flourish?
• Set targets and goals that blend the following:
  • The corporate bottom line and the necessary efficiency and effectiveness to support it.
  • The employees needs and the necessary work/support, achievement, recognition & development to achieve it.
  • The values and principles that will allow both bottom lines to co-exist and grow.
  • The needs of other internal and external stakeholders that either affect the above or are affected by the above.
• Make goal/target setting and performance reviews something to look forward to. What would an engaging, appreciative, empowering and uplifting review look and feel like? Ask your self. Ask your friends. Ask your team. Ask your subordinates. Ask your mentors and leaders. 
• Be the change you all want to see.

Tags: be the change, capacity, Dilbert, generate value, goal setting, implementation, innovation, performance review, presence, resilience, responsiveness, sustainability, sustainable leadership

The LimiTaTions of T

Let’s be honest, this whole “I-shaped“, “T-shaped” thing, though, useful is, by itself, a pretty big over simplification of the complex and diverse wholeness of a human being. I have found a number of posts and comments on other blogs that speak to this quite clearly. 

At peterme.com there is a good discussion about this:

Let me step back a bit. I have long had issue with the fetishization of “T-shaped” people for the simple reason that I’m not T-shaped. I’ve never been able to articulate my “vertical leg”. Throughout my career I’ve moved from activity to activity, from web development to interface design to information architecture to user research to product strategy. And I think my success is due to my ability to understand the synthesis across these skills and disciplines, to appreciate how to orchestrate them, to know how these integrate to achieve optimal affect.

And at Ryskamp.org Bob Ryskamp has this to say:

Consider this my plea for the design community to stop using the term “T-shaped people”. It’s demeaning, over-simplistic, misleading, and dangerously-influential, which combined with the prior three traits makes for trouble—that starts with “T”…

There are two problems with this phrase: T-shaped people don’t exist, and having T-shaped traits does not indicate design success…

To refer to them as “T-shaped” ignores all these other essential parts of each designer. That is why I say that calling someone “T-shaped” is demeaning and over-simplistic. People shaped like “T”s just don’t exist.

They’re right. We are much more than than any type or shape. These are just shorthand and simplified attempts at understanding something much more complex-a living, breathing complex, open human system. We are much more and will always be much more than any system of classification can make us. 

What is important is to use these systems as a means for understanding ourselves, understanding others and how we relate to and engage the world around us. At the heart of this is our capacity to do so, of which being “T-shaped” “I”, “H” or “A-shaped” is only one crucial yet incomplete part of a much larger and complex whole.

Tags: A-shaped people, capacity, I-shaped people, t-shaped people

We Do as We Are (Part 1: T-Shaped People)

A foundational element of our capacity to understand and engage the world is the way in which we relate to the world. In other words, we understand that of which we are aware–what we perceive. We engage with what we believe the world to be. How we engage with the world is who we are. A simple example is this: If I perceive the world as fundamentally other or separate from me then I will tend to be in opposition toward it. I will tend to try to control it, manipulate and use it as end to my means. That is who I am. Sound familiar?

In the this series of posts we’ll look at the different stages of perception we pass through as adults and the types of people these stages of perception tend to produce.

There has been a lot written about T-shaped people. For a good list of links visit Keith Instone’s blog. Tim Brown’s article in Fast Company talks about their strategy at IDEO:

We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they’re willing to try to do what you do. We call them “T-shaped people.” They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T — they’re mechanical engineers or industrial designers. But they are so empathetic that they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That’s what you’re after at this point — patterns that yield ideas.

T-shaped people can dive deep like their predecessors, the I-shaped people, but they have left the safety and comfort of their expertise behind. They engage and appreciate others and the contribution those people might bring to the project. However, people at the T-stage in their development may still tend to see their wide ranging connections as a means to a specific end. In other words, if you are in the T-shaped person’s network, you may be being used.

To really get egalitarian, we’re actually not looking at “T”, we’re talking about “H”. The difference is this: at the “T” level of capacity we are just beginning to engage others and the world in their complex glory. Others are still others. The world is still “out there.” When we make the move from “T” to “H” we take on a more inclusive perspective. The boundaries between “me”, “you” and “the world” begin to blur. The flower of inter-relation blossoms and the potential for organizations, communities and nations to really begin to transform emerges.

 

Tags: capacity, H-shaped people, I-shaped people, t-shaped people

Mighty Infinity

Stopped over at Seth Godin’s blog tonight and was struck by his post on infinity. He writes:

Infinite isn’t what it used to be. There used to be an infinite number of stars, and probably an infinite number of kids in high school who didn’t like you very much, but that was about it when it came to a typical human being’s interaction with the uncountable.

But now, infinite is everywhere.

It got me thinking about how “infinite” is just one of the words we use to describe that which we can’t quite hold, contain, control, manage. Infinite is God/gods, “a lot”, “no way!”, “awe”, “legion”, 八百万(yaoyorozu). It’s that which we long to simplify, find a way to engage and understand-have faith in, believe in.

In his post Seth describes “search”:

Search makes the infinite finite (at least for a while). With search, we turn the infinite selection on Amazon into a nearly manageable finite selection. Except search (no matter where you look) is pretty lame, and it doesn’t really turn infinite collections into manageable choices. 

He’s right. Search is linear-a direct connection between subject and object. Search ignores the open living system, in-your-face chaotic complexity of the infinite for the comfort of acquiring, having something-now. Search is the real opiate for the masses. Search gives you what you want and only (or nearly) what you want. My brother out in LA complains that internet searching is destroying his once (but still formidable) encyclopedic grasp of all things cinematic.

Is it possible, though, to hold the one and the many and all that connects and binds them (and us) in all of their simultaneous brilliance? That is what I’m searching for. That and Gary Snyder’s new book on Amazon.

Tags: capacity, complexity, infinite, search function

Primary Colors

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could it be that the candidates for the democratic party nomination in the US presidential election are showing signs of their leadership capacity? Recently Hillary was described as “hands on” and incapable of or very uncomfortable delegating. Obama, on the other hand, was described as more “hands off” and trusting of his people to do delegated assignments. 

These descriptions potentially show Hillary as an “I-shaped” or Expert leader. Though a strong performer, I-shaped people sometimes have trouble allowing others to do the work they believe they could do better themselves. They’re the experts. Obama on the other hand is being mades out as at least a “T-shaped” or Acheiver leader. People at this stage and beyond express their capacity to see and appreciate the talents and relative value all stakeholders bring to the table. It’s still too early to tell and, actually, assessing leadership capacity takes quite a bit more data than what I’ve posted above. It may be that we are looking at style instead:

As James O’Toole at Business Week writes: 

On one level, these visions seem to reflect a Carteresque tendency to micromanage (Clinton) and a Reaganesque organizational nonchalance (Obama). But each candidate is actually putting forth a well-reasoned philosophy of leadership, and their distinct approaches have implications for their respective abilities to deliver on the changes the majority of the nation seems to desire. From the vantage point of a business school professor, what is particularly striking is that the two candidates clearly articulate competing theories of leadership that have been the focus of much scholarly research over the last several decades; what I’ll refer to as the “managerial” and “transformational” approaches.

Leadership capacity or leadership style? Hard to say. Though, as we look toward the future, what type of leader sounds most appropriate to you? 

More on leadership capacity coming soon!

Tags: capacity, leadership, t-shaped people

What this is about

Some say we are special people living in a special time. A number of powerful, seemingly uncontrollable dynamics like peak oil and global climate change seem poised to wreak havoc on a grand scale. Ecologically, geopolitically, at work, at home many of us have never felt so at risk, so exposed to the potential for chaos and complexity to overwhelm our lives. 

What can we do? We can open ourselves to the change at hand, to that which is emerging. We can strive to engage our selves, others and the eco-systems into which we interwoven as fully as possible. In that engagement there is opportunity, in opportunity hope and potential to influence the chaotic and complex, to change change. 

That which is emerging is, in a sense, that which has always been there. It is change. Change wrought by the beauty and infinity of open, living systems at play. The world is not in danger–we are. The silk cocoons of security we have woven for ourselves individually, communally, globally are fraying. The order we have dreamt into existence is deteriorating. Things change. Earth will continue to spin, life will go on–with or without us.

Yet here we are. Things are changing. Things are complex. Chaos is doing her dance of destruction and birth. What do we need to face this change? We need the capacity to engage and face all that we are as open living human systems intertwined with and contained by other open living systems in the dance of life. We need the capacity to pace, we need the capacity to lead and, maybe, change from a waltz to a rhumba. We need the capacity to be flexible, agile and centered, grounded, compassionate, firm and aware as that which we are emerging, does its thing.

That’s what this is about. Any questions?

Tags: capacity, climate change, peak oil