More on Being Human in Organizations
I have written two posts that are explicitly about being human this year. The first was building off Dan Oestreich's blog and the second was building off of Gary Hamel's awesome book, The Future of Management. In both posts I make a fairly simple point: organizations are made of human beings, and human beings actually care about things like emotions, freedom, purpose, relationships, etc., so why do we avoid those things like the plague in our organizational lives?
This week I'm being hit again with this message by some other brilliant people, namely Lindy Dreyer and Joe Gerstandt. Lindy wrote a post about how to actually get clarity in your organization (so you won't have to worry as much about control) and Joe has written a few awesome posts about the connection between leadership and love.
Lindy: Clarity takes courage
Joe: I do not know of anything stronger or more powerful than love. And I know of few things that require less courage than bossing someone around with the power granted you from an organizational chart.
So here's the deal. Human beings, dating back to our ancestors who painted in caves, have been telling stories to guide their lives. Myths, legends, bedtime stories, Hollywood movies–they are all stories that suck us in, because they always get at what makes us human. They are always about love. They are always about conflict. They are always about courage. They are always about loss and change.
They are never about best practices in nonprofit governance. They are never about six sigma. They are never about data driven decision making. They are never about fiduciary responsibilities.
And those are not bad things. I love those things, actually (I'm kind of nerdy that way). But we have deluded ourselves into thinking that those things will take us to the next level. They won't. Those things took us to this level. That absolutely guarantees they won't take us to the next level.
Joe says the absence of relevant leadership is the defining issue of our time (that's leaderSHIP, not individual leaders), and I'm saying the same thing. Part of what makes our leadership systems irrelevant is their pathological avoidance of humanity.
Joe, Lindy, and I (and many others, of course) have grown weary of the old way, and we're moving ahead. Being explicitly human is a given now, and I'm ready to run with it. You want effective organizational strategy? You want high-performance teams? You want efficient processes? You want powerful leadership?
Then dive straight into the human side. That's where the growth is.
5 Comments
Nancy Iannone
I think the issues you are raising regarding the future of leadership are critically important.
As I was reading your post today, I was thinking of Daniel Pink’s “A Whole New Mind” and the previous age of information versus the 21st century need for high concept/high touch.
Keep it coming!
Jamie Notter
I love that book, Nancy! It’s been influential for me, both in terms of leadership and also generational differences. What he writes about “abundance” I think has applications when understanding the youngest generation in today’s workforce.
Lindy Dreyer
Thanks for the link love, Jamie. As a member of control freak anonymous (someone please send me the local meeting details if that actually exists) I don’t mind saying that being human and starting from a place of trust and love is really hard. Frustrating. Irritating. And yet, I can also say from experience that the more you share the love, the more you can actually accomplish.
Data is not love. But when data, six sigma, governance, or any other business process creates clarity–which is unfortunately not always the case, but it could be–than love is a lot easier, I think. In my mind that’s the leader’s role. To make love a lot easier.
Shelly Alcorn
Kudos Jamie….
Love the book Whole New Mind….
We could all use a little more right brain thinking and a little less six sigma memo writing….
Shelly
David Nickelson
As a psychologist leading change management from the web space in an nonprofit org, all of this rings true and then some. I manage some strong and distinct personalities, but if I did not let them “be themselves”, I would never get the quality of work from my team that I currently get. Don’t get me wrong; there are other challenges managing this way creates, but the trade off given the organizational mission — and the departments’ role in achieving it during a period of intense change and ambiguity — is one that is is worth the effort, and personally one that I enjoy; esp. the mentoring of talented team members…!
— Dr D Nickelson