I received the comment with a thank you.  The fact is that I get that comment from people quite often.  So I have come to accept that as one of my gifts.  In fact, I find myself often, reviewing voluminous text and summarizing it in my head or in my journal as a short pithy summary phrase or sentence.

Just recently I’ve been studying spirituals living, leadership, and diversity. Here’s what I have concluded.  Each of these concepts has a simple message that has been convoluted and co-opted such that the core message has been obscured.  Here’s my reading.

The message of the Bible (on the spiritual living).

The core message of the Bible is this: love (love God, love others, love yourself).  Everything else in the Bible is intended to illustrate how you do that.

The essence of leadership.

Leadership is the act of effectively selling a vision or a compelling future to yourself, to other individuals, or to groups.  Everything else that is written about leadership (over 16,000 books and counting) are merely attempts to describe how you do that.

Diversity.

The core message of the diversity movement is a call to recognize and acknowledge the differences and similarities that are a fact of life in any group of humans.  Everything else (diversity management, inclusion, multiculturalism, pluralism, talent management, human capital management, etc.) are attempts to describe how to do that.

I recognize that these definitions may be too simplistic for some and may not resonate with others.  In later posts, I plan to expand on these simple truths and invite your comments, with this proviso.  Only if you disagree profoundly and conceptually, should you offer alternative language (too often we play wordsmith games that distract us from core meaning).

The more I read of the commentary and anecdotes of thought leaders in these three areas, I am struck that each one senses that the core message has been diluted and lost.  While I am certainly in favor of a variety of voices expressing their points of view on these and any other topics, we must recognize that the more that is said about any topic, the higher the likelihood that there will be misunderstanding, miscommunication, disagreement, and controversy.  Unfortunately, the net result is that most people are confused about the essential, life-changing, performance-enhancing value of these concepts.  My hope is to reintroduce the simplicity of these basic truths, even at the risk of adding to the confusion.

Your thoughts, advice, praise, reprimands, and confirmations are welcome.

One of the things that distinguishes a person in a leadership role is their ability to sell a compelling future to themselves, to other individuals, or to a group of individuals.  As I’ve said before, leadership is a simple activity, but as I have also said, simple does not mean easy.

Chip Heath is a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University’s Graduate School Of Business.  He said recently in the McKinsey Quarterly, “Effective leaders are masters of simplicity."  He further suggests that leaders are good at identifying the most central core elements of strategies and highlighting them consistently.  (Much like standing on a hill with a banner raised screaming, this way!)

Examples of this abound.  One of my favorites of course is David Ratcliffe when he was CEO of Georgia Power.  In the midst of a high profile lawsuit, David decided that the most important, most central, core element of their strategy for overcoming the pain of the employee lawsuit was to focus on the organization’s values.  For two years straight, he worked relentlessly to elevate the importance of a set of values, called Southern Style.  He never made a speech without mentioning them.  He tied them to the diversity initiative and to a Leadership Challenge to become the most trusted leaders in the industry.  He made his expectations concrete by telling simple stories.  Most of the stories had to do with his upbringing in a South Georgia farming community. One of those stories is highlighted in the Introduction of my book, Managing Differently. But, he also told personal stories about his own journey to understanding the value of each individual employee and customer.

It was virtually impossible for anyone at Georgia Power at that time to misunderstand or mistake the expectations for them as leaders, managers, or individual contributors. David used a combination of simplicity, concreteness, and stories to make clear the direction that Georgia Power was going in, and that each employee would be held accountable for living out those expectations.

Leaders tell stories.  That is a fundamental characteristic of effective leaders.  The impact of storytelling is to clarify, simplify and illuminate the principles, processes and practices that the leader expects of himself, others, and the corporation.

What’s your story?

For example, Warren Bennis’ now famous list of comparisons include the following:

Now, I ask you, after hearing that, are you surprised that no one wants to be a manager?  (ex. From articles and experience, incl. Bossidy on Execution)

When I speak of management, I am referring to the people management role. I recognize that the word management applies to a number of activities, most of which are not generally connected to people issues.

Part of the fascination with leadership is the word itself. Leader has come to mean something glamorous and desireable. So much so that many of the traits attributed to leadership are actually management responsibilities.

After all this time focusing on leadership, there is still a dearth of leadership talent worldwide and a greater dearth of management talent. One reason we haven’t developed more good leaders and even proportionately fewer great managers is a lack of definition for each. Of the nearly 20,000 books written on leadership and the thousands more written on management, the discussion revolves around why leadership is important, how leadership  looks, how leaders lead, etc. I have yet to encounter a clear understandable, standard definition of “what” leadership is and “what” (people) management is.  The lack of definition means that practitioners never know for sure when they are leading and when they are managing. The net result is most people never master either

This poses a major challenge for organizations. My own experience indicates that culture is relatively intractable and people are unpredictable.  So what can leaders do to overcome this obvious dilemma.  There are no best practice solutions to cultivate innovation. My experience suggests that a focus on people management fundamentals may be the key. In Managing Differently, I try to make the argument that it is managers, more than leaders, that produce the winning outcomes for business.  Here are three people management ideas that may be useful in the quest for innovation.

Number one.

Along with key strategies like diversity management, innovation should be added to the strategic management agenda.  This means that innovation should not only be encouraged, but managed, tracked, and measured as a core component of the company’s growth aspirations.

Number two.

Managers must learn to make better use of the existing talent for innovation.  The seven principles of Managing Differently can be a good start for helping managers get the best from all their employees all the time.

Number three.

Leaders must take steps to foster a culture of innovation based on trust among employees. For this to happen, employees must know that their ideas are valued, and that it is safe to express those ideas.

The best predictor of innovative performance is supportive leadership. The top motivators of innovation behavior is strong leaders who encourage and protect innovators along with great managers who actively manage it.  Rewarding nothing but short-term performance and maintaining a fear of failure inhibits a culture of innovation.

Let’s not assume that we all understand what I mean by innovation.  My definition of innovation is a creative idea for a new product or service,or process that has been converted into a revenue producing activity. It is not enough to have a creative idea. Innovation requires that the company get some significant benefit from that idea. That only happens when the idea is converted into a revenue stream.

Here are three ideas that can advance innovation.

1.      Make sure all senior leaders consider innovation a top priority. For this to happen, all members of the top team must agree that promoting innovation is critical to corporate success. They must then reflect on how their own behavior reinforces our inhibits innovation. This is the same principle that we espouse for installing diversity management as a strategy.

2.      Create innovation coaches. Identify those managers who are already acting as brokers to improve innovation Pull them aside and give them opportunities to develop their coaching and facilitation skills so that they can build the capabilities of other people who have a knack for innovation.

3.      Allow managed experimentation and quick success.  This approach is typically the best way to start any change effort in large organizations.  Quick success has been called “plucking the low hanging fruit”, and is a way to generate excitement about the possibility that innovation can actually work.

Innovation is a big idea with big potential. Like all big ideas. it takes work to make it happen.  Having the aspiration means little until the decision is made that execution is critical. Remember, innovation lies at the intersection of creativity and deliberate diversity. Are you ready to take that step?

This dilemma is further complicated by the fast-growing new wave of employees called the Millenials. These younger people have been raised to believe that their contribution inside the organization should be judged simply on the merits of what you do not on your title, credentials, or providence. What’s an organization to do?

In a very selfish way, organizations need to begin with hiring talent and using that talent to make profits.  That brings into question the old 20th century model of managing organizations. Talented people in the 21st-century are not likely to need, nor will they stand for traditional hierarchy. One thing that I have discovered is that most organizations pretend that they want to hire the best and brightest. In fact, all the evidence suggests that they don’t. The reason, of course, is that really bright, talented people are a pain in the behind. They don’t follow rules; they don’t want to honor the hierarchy; they question everything; they take action without permission; and, they take what they believe are reasonable risks. Let’s be honest, most organizations and most organizational cultures were not designed to accommodate these rebels.  So, while organizations say that they want the best and brightest, in fact, they are looking for people who are good enough, and most likely to fit into the organizational culture. Before you jump to conclusions and think that this is a putdown, let me assure you I believe that it represents smart management. Having a bright person on your team who is not able to work with others is a disruptive factor.  So, you have to do an analysis to determine if you want diversity and innovation, and if so, what adjustments are you willing to make so they can thrive in your organization.

Going forward, not many companies will be able to waste any of the human imagination and intellectual capital that they have. CEOs will need to abandon thinking that some few of their employees are clever and imaginative, but most are not. They will have to learn, like Toyota and others, that you can get the best ideas from ordinary people. Getting the best from all of your people, all the time is the result of the process we call Managing Differently.

The thing that really stops innovation in most organizations is risk.  Many talented people don’t see risk the way others do. CEOs are terrified of any disruption that can put their quarterly earnings at risk.  So, there is a gap between the radical rhetoric of innovation and reality. Diversity Management strategies, properly executed can be the catalyst that makes innovation possible. Even in those organizations which are risk-averse.

Gary Hamel, the author of the new book The Future Of Management, makes a similar argument.  He suggests that the 20th century model of managing, undercuts the 21st century need for collaboration wealth creation and innovation. In fact, the 20th century model generates unnecessary complexity within an organization that virtually disrupts innovation. He goes on to say that most organizations today do not have innovation or adaptability DNA.

My favorite example of this point is a company that I have come to admire greatly.  Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies is an example of a well run organization with a strong inclusive culture. J&J is an example of a company not only espouses their values, but actually lives their values. The well-documented, J. and J. Credo is a living document that guides the decisions that J&J leaders make every day. Most of you are aware of the famous Tylenol scare in which Johnson & Johnson set a high bar for responding to a corporate crisis by recalling all Tylenol product when there was just a moderate to slight possibility that some of them may have been tampered with. It was a costly decision, but totally consistent with the Credo. Many of you may not be aware that that was not an uncommon occurrence. I can personally cite at least five other occasions, which did not get headlines like Tylenol, but which illustrate J&J’s adherence to its values. The most recent was their decision to withdraw their plans to purchase a company called Guidant.  That decision was due largely to the fact that Guidant was found guilty of hiding the fact that their personal defibrilators were potentially dangerous to consumers. Upon review of that behavior (hiding the truth), it became clear that Guidant would not be a good match for the J&J culture, despite the potential financial benefits.

While I admire J&J’s culture and adherence to ethics, I also observe that J&J, like GE, Cisco, and other companies, is not designed for innovation. J&J’s business model relies heavily on its marketing and sales prowess. Recognizing the businesses that they are in, they pay special attention to entrepreneurial ventures that are generating new ideas that could be useful in serving medical providers and consumers of health and personal care products.  Once J&J Thinks that the products are viable and a moderate market has been established, they buy the company. The obvious benefit to the acquired company is while they could produce sales of a hundred million for their product, J. and J. could produce sales of one billion. It is a model that works and takes full advantages of J&J’s strengths. It also illustrates why J&J is not likely to be a paragon of innovation anytime soon. Instead of growing through innovation, J&J just buys innovation.

Every time you consciously chose something, you are producing results. You are the one who started everything, hence the reality obeyed you. Again, even if the action was, by any standard, a failure. Reality responded to your stimulus and created a result. Maybe it wasn’t the result you wanted, but it’s still a result.

If you’re reacting to something or somebody else, you are producing excuses. Your reactions to external stimulus will seldom be aligned with your internal values. If you chose to react to stimulus, you’re already giving up your values and empower the stimulus. You’re not acting, you are giving out control.

Most of the time, your reactions will try to protect yourself from apparently bad things: somebody yelling at you, losing your job, being left by your partner. A typical reaction to all of these will be frustration. And perhaps sadness, lack of hope, misery. So, after the yelling is gone, after the job is gone, after the partner is gone and after your miserable reaction, all you will be left with are excuses. It could have been the other way around, but it isn’t. Sorry.

***

A typical reaction after reading this post will be to think a little bit, to identify possible matches with your own behavioral patterns and then to forget it while gazing at the next funny cat picture on the web. A conscious action will be to bookmark it, to share it with as many friends as you can and to comment on it.

I’m joking, of course. But I’m consciously choosing to joke with you by writing this blog post, instead of gazing at the wall in my office and thinking life sucks. And this action will certainly create some great results.

How about you?

Some of the most dangerous safe reactions are related to money. We tend to react to economic stimulus and news, rather then act upon them. For instance, if there’s news about a bad economic context, we’re starting to protect our investments. That’s a safe reaction. The bad economic context may or may not hurt us directly, we never really know that. But the pre-programmed reaction to cover our savings will emerge without any control from our part.

A much better approach would be to directly act upon our finances. For instance, it’s not uncommon that investment is much more profitable during hard economic conditions. A lot of stuff, including real estate, is getting cheaper. Running to protect our money, by reaction, instead of investing it, by conscious action, will be stupid. Again, the economic context it’s a fact, everybody will feel it, what really matters is our attitude towards it, our choices.

Every time you act on something, you are rewarded in some way. Not every conscious action will be successful. You may fail at times. Maybe many times. But you still get your reward. When you fail, the reward is in learning. You made a choice, you acted in a specific way and you learned something, even if the action was a complete failure.

If you react, all you get is frustration. You didn’t make a choice, you just responded to a stimulus. Maybe you wanted something else, but instead of choosing an action, you automatically reacted to that stimulus. There is no way you can get a reward if you’re reacting to something. Even if the initial stimulus was positive.

For instance, you blindly fall in love with somebody.That’s a positive stimulus and you reacted to it. After the initial, unconscious chemistry phase, you have a choice: to love and accept no matter what. If you don’t consciously chose to love no matter what, you’ll get hurt. Instead of accepting the other one, you’ll start to control him. In love, jealousy is a reaction, unconditional acceptance is a conscious action.

You may be in favorable contexts at times. When you’re a kid, most of the time you’re in a continuous favorable context. The problem is that context is artificial, you are protected by your parents. While you’re a kid, in a favorable context, acting or reacting are basically the same: whatever you do the context will remain favorable. Your parents will love and protect you no matter what. But once you get out from their protection, you may hit some very unfriendly contexts. And here you’ll learn the real difference between conscious action and powerless reaction.

If you consciously chose success, you don’t really care about context. You’re going to be successful no matter what. You act, you’re consciously building your own way. You chose to get there no matter what. But if you don’t make this choice, and your life is just a reaction to a chaotic flow of stimulus, then anything in the surroundings will help you fail. It’s you who let the context do that, and you did this by resigning from your own command, by reacting instead of acting.

For instance, being miserable after losing your job it’s a reaction. The context was really hard for you and you lost something. The “normal” reaction is to be sad, worried, discouraged and miserable. On the other hand, being confident, manifesting hope and starting to look for another job (or even starting your own business) it’s a conscious choice. Losing your job it’s just a fact. What you do about this fact is what really matters.