Mood disorders may help people find leadership clarity

(Note - this post has been modifed since first published 24 hours ago to give additional contextual comment.)

Winston Churchill struggled with depression, and that may have made him a better leader.

Referring to Churchill, Nassir Ghaemi, professor of psychiatry in Tufts University School of Medicine, states: “The depressive leader saw the event of his day with a clarity and realism lacking in saner, more stable men.”  (Johansen, 2012, p.50)

This was one insight that hit me reading “Leaders Make the Future” by Bob Johansen.  Johansen is the former President and now Distinguished Fellow of the Institute for the Future (IFTF) - an independent non-profit think tank that has produced an annual ten-year forecast for over 40 years.  The 10 novel leadership skills he introduces in this book are worthy of deep consideration.

First, I should put a bit more context on the depression issue – Ghaemi’s work suggests that mood disorders may actually help people find leadership clarity in a world of increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA).  He considers that in good times, healthy people function effectively as leaders, but “...in times of crisis and tumult, those who are mentally abnormal, even ill, become the greatest leaders…..Mildly depressed people…tend to see the world more clearly, as it is” (my emphasis).

Johansen contends that “Being normal may be a disadvantage in abnormal times.”  And I am sure he is not advocating depression - rather the need for a mindset open enough to see reality as it is.

There is little normal in a world of increasing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (VUCA), and Johansen argues that leaders operating in this world must learn new skills in order to make a better future including:

1)            Maker instinct (leaders approach their leadership with commitment of a job and energy of a passionate hobby)

2)            Clarity (leaders being clear about what they are making but flexible about how it gets made)

3)            Dilemma Flipping (turning problems that can't be solved into opportunities)

4)            Immersive Learning (learning by doing)

5)            Bio-empathy (understand, respect and learn from nature)

6)            Constructive depolarization (calming tense situations and bringing people from divergent cultures towards constructive engagement)

7)            Quiet transparency (ability to be open and authentic about what matters to you without self-promotion)

8)            Rapid Prototyping (ability to create early versions of innovations)

9)            Smart mob organizing (creating, engaging and nurturing social networks)

10)        Commons creating (stimulate, grow and nurture shared assets that can benefit other players)

The book is probably best suited to a seasoned leader with an experience on which to reflect and make sense of Johansen’s words.  He is effective in explaining the "what" and the "why" but not the "how”, and this is where an ability to draw on an extensive practice would be useful.  Getting through the book is not an easy task, but is one that will be highly rewarding.

My one major insight is that “Leaders make the Future” offers a novel approach to making sense of the present.  If you can do that, you are in a better position to shape the future.

I read many books on leadership.  Not often do I recommend one.  Johansen’s “Leaders make the future” is an exception.  You won’t find it easy, and you will need be prepared to take a time for some deep reflection.  If you care about the practice of leading then you will find Johansen’s ideas as very useful (along with anything written by Max De Pree!!)

Bob Johansen (2012) Leaders Make the Future: Ten New Leadership Skills for an Uncertain World.  Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco.  ISBN 978-1-60994-487-2

Love after Love

The time will come

when, with elation,

you will greet yourself arriving

at  your own door, in your own mirror;

and each will smile at the other’s welcome,

and say, sit here.  Eat.

You will love again the stranger who was yourself.

Give wine.  Give bread.  Give back your heart

to itself, to the stranger who has loved you

all your life, whom you ignored

for another, who knows you by heart.

Take down the love-letters from the bookshelf,

the photographs, the desperate notes,

peel your own image from the mirror.

Sit. Feast on you life.

Source:  “Love after love” from Sea grapes by Derek Walcott. (1976)

Seeking to be Creative? Listen with spirit

Wisdom, insight, change and action come not from better thinking, testing and strategising, but from letting go, receiving and listening.

Group creativity appears to exhibit a common spirit revealing itself. The vehicle for receiving this insight or connecting with spirit, is a quality of detached, selfless openness. It is like emptying oneself or creating a vessel for receiving and containing spirit.

Source:  Levine L (1994) Listening with spirit and the art of team dialogue. Journal of organisational change management. 7(1):61-73

Industry doesn't need applied research, nor does it need pure research

A recent conference conducted by the New Zealand Association of Scientists has drawn attention to the argument about whether funding should be provided for pure research, or for applied research. This is a common, ongoing dichotomy in many debates over research, particularly that funded from the public purse.

The reality, however, is that this debate is based on the erroneous assumption that industry benefits only from applied research, and that research directed at assisting industry must be applied.

This is an oversimplification, based on the definitions of research developed by Vannevar Bush in the post-World War II era of economic expansion.

Donald Stokes in his 1997 book Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation argues that there is a far stronger link between research of the more basic nature and innovation in industry than many appreciate.  In fact, the dominant form of research is use-inspired, regardless of whether it is at the discovery or the application part of the cycle.

Yet, industry (and a large body of policy-makers) is lead to believe that it needs applied research. Thus the attention has turned to wants, rather than needs.

What industry needs is research that is appropriate to solve the problem at hand, or exploit the opportunity recognised. (And this is best driven by better problem definition, not the meaningless classification of science).

Very often the real needs of industry cannot be met from available knowledge, which means that the research it needs must be of a more discovery nature. As Stokes eloquently puts it when he uses Louis Pasteur as his example, the more involved you become in the application of scientific knowledge in the market, the more you identify even more fundamental questions to be answered. These fundamental questions need to be answered to enable full exploitation in the market. 

Others explain the concept better than me, such as this contribution from Washington State University.   

The Lessons of Pasteur's Example can be summed up:

•         Pasteur was a chemist & microbiologist

•         Driven to solve the problems of industry - fermentation

•         Breakthroughs include vaccines (rabies & anthrax), germ theory & pasteurisation (of course)

•         While ‘use inspired’ he answered fundamental science questions, because he needed the answers in order to answer industry questions

•         Suggests that industry focused research includes both applied and pure/fundamental

•         Focus should be on outcomes, not type of research

What is the utility of all of this? 

Countless hours are wasted on trying to determine whether the public should be supporting applied research or basic research. Far less time is spent on identifying the priorities to be researched, or the questions and challenges to be answered.  More time spent on the latter will enable the scarce public resources to be better targeted at activities that make a difference.

Once the priorities are identified it is easier to determine how much effort is needed in discovery and how much in application – that choice depends on what we know about the field, how much information and knowledge has already been discovered, and what remain the unanswered questions.

Deciding what to do on the basis of whether it is pure or applied research does little more than distort the research agenda. Research is research, and the nature of the research depends on how much knowledge we have in relation to the problem or the opportunity we are examining.

Now, a debate about national priorities - that's an entirely different beast! As is how much is needed to be invested!  How do we best define the problems, or characterise the opportunities?

Leaders Learn

One question often asked is: are leaders born or is leadership taught?

Leaders learn!

Burt Nanus gives a few ideas about how leadership skills can be learned.

1.   Seek leadership responsibility early and often.

2.   Find a mentor or role model.

3.   Develop farsightedness.  Create a sense of vision.

4.   Master the skills of interdependence.  They're more important than the skills of competition.

5.   Become a world citizen, learning the languages and cultures of others.

6.   Develop personal character, integrity, and trust.

7.   Seek varied job assignments.

8.   Think like a researcher, develop a sense of curiosity and creativity.

9.   Design a leadership job carefully, knowing their goals.

10.Have fun at what you do.

Source:  Nanus B (1990) The Leaders Edge (US: Contemporary Books)

Six characteristics of a Good Leader

 

Leadership is a diverse topic, and there is an enormous literature that surrounds it.  Social media abounds with “insights”, to the extent that I have recently begun reflecting on what I have learnt about leading over the last 30 years in the work force. Not much seems to be new!!

 One dominant theme in the social media is an attempt to describe good leadership.  The following is an older contribution from Schmertz and Novak on the topic that seems to cover much of what is advocated in more contemporary contributions.

A good leader

• is always willing to do the dirty work.  He'll sweep out the store if that's what's required to make a project succeed.  If everyone on the team has to make a sacrifice, he'll set an example for others to follow.
• isn't afraid to hire people who are smarter or more creative than himself.  He knows that if he goes to the usual mediocre sources, he's going to end up with the usual mediocre results.  A real leader can harness the energy of creative people in a way that will enhance the entire enterprise.  Since most people "per se" are mediocre, the true leader can be recognised because, somehow or other, his people consistently turn in superior performances.
• is enthusiastic during tough times.  Leaders who constantly complain about a bad situation can rarely motivate the troops and help them to overcome adversity.  In a crisis, optimism and confidence are even more important than experience and intelligence.
• has vision.  In our experience there are two kinds of leader - the "lets-not" and the "why-not".  When times are tough, the lets-not prefer to retreat, to stay with the familiar, to avoid taking risks.  The why-nots, on the other hand, are open to fresh ideas and bold possibilities.  If the old answers don't work, they're willing to experiment with new and unconventional solutions.
• is tough - a quality that has less to do with personality than with character.  It's not that the tough leader is abrasive, or uncaring, or insensitive.  It's simply that he's willing and able to make the difficult and unpopular decisions - and live with their consequences.
• holds a set of philosophical principles that guide him when it comes to specific issues.  Rather than making decisions on an ad hoc basis, he has formed some conclusions about the basic objectives of the organisation and about how those objectives should be reached.  By the same token, he knows that the long-term health and survival of the organisation must take precedence always over short-term gains.

See:  Schmertz H and Novak W (1986)  Goodbye to the low profile.  The art of creative confrontation.  London: Mercury Books

Ideas without action aren't ideas--they're regrets.

In a previous comment I talked about ideas having power if you contribute them  for discussion and debate.  Inc. Magazine has a nice article entitled why "idea" should be a verb written by Jeff Haden.

Haden says: Every day, would-be entrepreneurs let hesitation and uncertainty stop them from acting on an idea. Fear of the unknown and fear of failure are what stopped me, and may be what stops you, too.To which I would add, it's not just the entrepreneurs.

The final sentence in the article says it all:  You certainly won’t get it right all the time, but if you let “idea” stay a noun, you will always get it wrong.

It reminds me of the Wayne Gretzky contribution:  you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

Haden's advice:  try trusting your analysis, your judgment, and even your instincts a little more.

What price cheap food? Obesity estimated to cost the USA about $344 billion in medical-related expenses by 2018,

Today I came across a contribution entitled Americans Eat the Cheapest Food in the World, But What is It Really Costing Us?

The contribution records outlines how the USA population spend much less of their money on the food than ever before, but they eat out far more than ever before, buying fatty processed and fast foods laden with saturated fats, sodium, and added sugars. When compared to other countries, USA food is by far the cheapest.

But it comes at a cost – environmental and in burgeoning healthcare costs resulting from obesity.  The article notes:

‘If Americans continue to pack on pounds, obesity will cost us about $344 billion in medical-related expenses by 2018, eating up about 21 percent of healthcare spending”

These are the issues we all need to consider when reflecting on what we want from farming – from our agricultural and food systems.

View the full contribution at http://www.treehugger.com/health/americans-eat-the-cheapest-food-in-the-world-but-what-is-it-really-costing-us.html

Paul Callaghan - Scientist and passionate New Zealander - rest in piece

New Zealand mourns Sir Paul Callaghan, one of New Zealand's premier scientists who has lost his battle with cancer. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10794361


Paul was a wonderfully enthusiastic scientist and citizen— and I will always remember his commitment to the practice of his scientific research in New Zealand, and the way he encouraged younger members of the scientific community to  do the same.  "NZ is a great place to do research".  Much will be said in the next few days to honour his contribution.

Very best wishes to Paul’s wife Miang,and  his family, on this sad day.

Rest in Peace Paul

Sir Paul Callahan at Victoria University at Wellington

Food Dialogues: what one group values in agriculture

My previous posting asks, amongst other things, the general question of "what do we want agriculture to do?

I have come across an interesting site Food Dialogues  http://www.fooddialogues.com/about/our-values/

Food Dialogues is the site of  USFRA.  The group, in it's own words is:

U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) is a newly formed alliance consisting of a wide range of prominent farmer- and rancher-led organizations and agricultural partners. This marks the first time agricultural groups at the national, regional and state levels have collaborated to lead the dialogue and answer Americans’ questions about how we raise our food – while being stewards of the environment, responsibly caring for our animals and maintaining strong businesses and communities.

The site includes an interesting value statement that says:

We believe in farming and ranching that is sustainable.  To us this means helping people everywhere thrive, improving the health of the planet and growing strong businesses. 

They comment on aspirations about people, planet and business, and strategic objectives to: 

• Increase the number of policymakers and government officials (at all levels) who value modern agriculture production.

• Engage key customer decision makers in the dialogue about the value of modern food production.

• Work with leading national influencer organizations (medical, cultural, dietary, environmental, etc.) to create partnerships in support of today's agriculture.

• Increase the role of farmers and ranchers as the voice of animal and crop agriculture on local, state and national food issues.

 This site deserves a visit and USFRA is to be supported in trying to establish a dialogue and encouraging people to thinks about agriculture in a meaningful manner.