As a business coach, I have the good fortune of helping others tap into their purpose and passion. In doing so, their work becomes more than just a paycheck; it becomes their life's work.
When you tap into your life's work, you are living your brand. Your brand is a unique expression and cannot be replicated by anyone else. It provides you long term fulfillment and success.
Recently we hosted a "Texas Women who Rock" event in Houston. I am one of the founding members of this wonderful organization that was created to empower professional women in all aspects of their lives. We had several guest speakers, all of which were successful professional women who had demonstrated resilience in the face of adversity.
Each of them shared stories where anger played some critical role in mobilizing them to find a solution. Through their anger and discontentment, they found their creativity, calling, purpose and passion they were able to channel into their life's work. Here's a snapshot of their stories:
Sherry Eichberger lost two close, young friends to cancer and was angered to learn that many products in our daily lives are toxic and can contribute to illnesses like cancer. Her solution was to open One Green Street, a "one stop shop" where people can shop for green, non-toxic gifts and products. Today, Sherry's life work and brand helps people live healthier lives.
Minerva Perez, a long time anchor on major television stations, was frustrated and angered by the fact that she wasn't seeing Latin Women have a voice on shows like The View, despite the growing numbers of latina viewership. When she left ABC, her solution was to form her own television show "Latina Voices. Smart Talk." which is now in the midst of rapid expansion and growth. Today Minerva's life work and brand is giving voice to thousands of Latina Women.
Cindy Cline-Flores lost her older sister to suicide. She felt a full range of emotions dealing with this tragedy, but she also felt discontentment that her sister had lost hope. She found solace and healing by writing a book titled "Always Hope" which features 25 people who have suffered equally difficult situations yet persevered. Today Cindy's life work and brand is to bring hope to those suffering from difficulty and adversity.
In hearing these stories, I was reminded that my own journey was very similar.
As a long-time, corporate employee who had risen into the ranks of leadership, I saw and was subject to many injustices. Through my more than 20 years experience, I saw a lack of leadership, undue fairness and breaches of integrity. I was bothered and angered by it.
I was so angry at times that I couldn't see straight. I was blinded by it and at times this anger even caused me to unproductively lash out.
One day I realized holding onto this anger didn't serve me. The anger also diminished my ability to make a difference and add value to my organization and company. I needed to find a solution. And I did.
When I left Corporate America, I wrote a book about leadership because this is where I found the source of my anger. In doing so, I found my true passion, purpose and brand. Today my life's work and brand is about helping others become better leaders in their lives.
People often wonder how I successfully made the shift from Marketing Executive to Leadership Development Coach, Trainer and Speaker. My simple answer is that my life's work and brand was disguised as anger.
I believe that this was also the case for Sherry, Minerva and Cindy.
Finding your life's work and your brand may not require you to completely change your course either. You may be able to find it right there in your company or in your business by making a few simple changes and adjustments.
So next time you find yourself red with fury, don't push it aside and dismiss it. Instead embrace it and dive deep into it. It's the unlikely place where you can find your creativity, calling, passion and purpose.
Find it. Express it. Live it. It is the source of your life's work and brand.
And you may never call it "work" again.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Self view
Many leaders have an inflated sense of self.
In fact, 62% of people indicate that others see them as above average leaders. Yikes! That math just isn't right. As leaders, what we need is the ability to garner feedback instead of thinking that we are all well above average.
I used to think that about myself, and boy was I wrong!
As a leadership development coach, it seems like the people that are asked to work with me are those that can't and don't want to hear that they are far from "above average." But there is a fundamental difference between intention and reality.
Usually in self-assessments, we are thinking about our intentions. And when it comes to our intentions, many of us are above average. Many people intend to be great leaders. But we often fail even when we have the best intentions. This is where the breakdown occurs.
Ironically, we can't ever fulfill on our best intentions unless we start taking in the feedback of how others are perceiving us. So if you do rate yourself as an "above average" leader, consider getting some direct feedback from others.
It will help you reconcile the difference between your intention and the reality of how you are performing as a leader.
In fact, 62% of people indicate that others see them as above average leaders. Yikes! That math just isn't right. As leaders, what we need is the ability to garner feedback instead of thinking that we are all well above average.
I used to think that about myself, and boy was I wrong!
As a leadership development coach, it seems like the people that are asked to work with me are those that can't and don't want to hear that they are far from "above average." But there is a fundamental difference between intention and reality.
Usually in self-assessments, we are thinking about our intentions. And when it comes to our intentions, many of us are above average. Many people intend to be great leaders. But we often fail even when we have the best intentions. This is where the breakdown occurs.
Ironically, we can't ever fulfill on our best intentions unless we start taking in the feedback of how others are perceiving us. So if you do rate yourself as an "above average" leader, consider getting some direct feedback from others.
It will help you reconcile the difference between your intention and the reality of how you are performing as a leader.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Do you accept what others are saying?
I enjoy reading a variety of leadership and business books. On one of my recent business trips, I found myself strolling through an airport bookstore and stumbled upon Tina Fey's book "Bossypants."
I was immediately intrigued by the title "Bossypants" and because it is an autobiography, it sounded like it might be about her admittance to not being the best of bosses.
Once it captured my attention, I looked at the cover more closely and there she was, Tina Fey, posed on the cover with hairy, man arms. Why? Was this image somehow tied to her message of being a bossypants? Or was it simply a comedic statement? I decided that it was probably the latter, yet despite my intrigue, I refrained from purchasing it right there on the spot because it seemed so silly.
It wasn't until I got my Kindle, that I reconsidered purchasing it. I guess that image of Tina Fey with hairy, man arms bothered me more than I thought. Having an electronic reader allowed me to read it without having to look at that cover each time I picked it up. I did learn a lot about the business of comedy (probably more than I really wanted to) but more importantly I learned an interesting leadership lesson
The lesson I learned was the power of YES; not as a response to a question, but as an attitude.
Now that may not seem very groundbreaking.
It's not until you realize how little YES we have when leading others that you really start to see the power of YES as an attitude.
This idea was presented in the book when Fey was explaining how comedians engage in improvisation; the rules of the game, so to speak.
If you have ever watched an improv show, it is clear that those leading the show aren't planning how or where the dialogue is going. In fact, as a participant in improv you have no way to control, direct or be responsible for what anybody says to you or how they even respond to you. You only have the ability and the role to listen and react to what is being said.
Sounds a bit like real life, doesn't it?
Ideally, yes. But in environments where authority is at play (parenting and leading) we mistakenly believe that we can control, direct or be responsible for the words and reactions of others. In reality, we can't. Like in improv, we can still only react accordingly to what is said. We own our own words and reactions, not the words or reactions of others.
In this context, A YES attitude isn't about positive thinking, or positive re-framing, it is simply about accepting what the person has said to you, not arguing with them, or trying to change it, or determine how or why they said it, but simply hearing and accepting that it was said and building on it from there
Think for a moment how little we see this really at play in the business world, or perhaps even in your home life with kids, a spouse or partner.
It is a difficult leadership lesson and one that I admit I still struggle with.
When guiding and developing people, I always thought that if they could only watch me, learn from me and observe me, they would ultimately see "how it was to be done." However, the problem with this line of thinking is that they aren't me and I am not them. It's based on a fundamental flaw that I can actually direct, control and teach others to react exactly as I would react. Nothing is further from the truth.
Unfortunately, leaders do this all the time with their associates and parents do this all of the time with their kids. In trying to control, direct or teach others to react and say things as you would, you aren't listening or accepting what they are saying. You diminish not enhance, their ability to think and act on their own feet. You also negate their involvement and demotivate them from participating in the future.
Having a YES attitude doesn't mean that you have to agree with their perspective, but it does mean that you must listen and accept their idea and allow it to be.
Using the power of YES as an attitude allows for innovative communication and exchange while pushing back accountability and responsibility to the other person.
Accepting the words of others and reacting to them accordingly ultimately engages and develops others to a whole new level.
After all, isn't this the ultimate role of a leader?
Tina Fey as a comedian was definitely schooled in using YES as an attitude. However, did she transfer this skill into her leadership roles? Maybe not as much as she could, because if she had, she wouldn't have been as much of a bossypants, would she?
Then maybe she wouldn't have had hairy, man arms on the cover either.
So what about you? Are you accepting what others are saying?
I was immediately intrigued by the title "Bossypants" and because it is an autobiography, it sounded like it might be about her admittance to not being the best of bosses.
Once it captured my attention, I looked at the cover more closely and there she was, Tina Fey, posed on the cover with hairy, man arms. Why? Was this image somehow tied to her message of being a bossypants? Or was it simply a comedic statement? I decided that it was probably the latter, yet despite my intrigue, I refrained from purchasing it right there on the spot because it seemed so silly.
It wasn't until I got my Kindle, that I reconsidered purchasing it. I guess that image of Tina Fey with hairy, man arms bothered me more than I thought. Having an electronic reader allowed me to read it without having to look at that cover each time I picked it up. I did learn a lot about the business of comedy (probably more than I really wanted to) but more importantly I learned an interesting leadership lesson
The lesson I learned was the power of YES; not as a response to a question, but as an attitude.
Now that may not seem very groundbreaking.
It's not until you realize how little YES we have when leading others that you really start to see the power of YES as an attitude.
This idea was presented in the book when Fey was explaining how comedians engage in improvisation; the rules of the game, so to speak.
If you have ever watched an improv show, it is clear that those leading the show aren't planning how or where the dialogue is going. In fact, as a participant in improv you have no way to control, direct or be responsible for what anybody says to you or how they even respond to you. You only have the ability and the role to listen and react to what is being said.
Sounds a bit like real life, doesn't it?
Ideally, yes. But in environments where authority is at play (parenting and leading) we mistakenly believe that we can control, direct or be responsible for the words and reactions of others. In reality, we can't. Like in improv, we can still only react accordingly to what is said. We own our own words and reactions, not the words or reactions of others.
In this context, A YES attitude isn't about positive thinking, or positive re-framing, it is simply about accepting what the person has said to you, not arguing with them, or trying to change it, or determine how or why they said it, but simply hearing and accepting that it was said and building on it from there
Think for a moment how little we see this really at play in the business world, or perhaps even in your home life with kids, a spouse or partner.
It is a difficult leadership lesson and one that I admit I still struggle with.
When guiding and developing people, I always thought that if they could only watch me, learn from me and observe me, they would ultimately see "how it was to be done." However, the problem with this line of thinking is that they aren't me and I am not them. It's based on a fundamental flaw that I can actually direct, control and teach others to react exactly as I would react. Nothing is further from the truth.
Unfortunately, leaders do this all the time with their associates and parents do this all of the time with their kids. In trying to control, direct or teach others to react and say things as you would, you aren't listening or accepting what they are saying. You diminish not enhance, their ability to think and act on their own feet. You also negate their involvement and demotivate them from participating in the future.
Having a YES attitude doesn't mean that you have to agree with their perspective, but it does mean that you must listen and accept their idea and allow it to be.
Using the power of YES as an attitude allows for innovative communication and exchange while pushing back accountability and responsibility to the other person.
Accepting the words of others and reacting to them accordingly ultimately engages and develops others to a whole new level.
After all, isn't this the ultimate role of a leader?
Tina Fey as a comedian was definitely schooled in using YES as an attitude. However, did she transfer this skill into her leadership roles? Maybe not as much as she could, because if she had, she wouldn't have been as much of a bossypants, would she?
Then maybe she wouldn't have had hairy, man arms on the cover either.
So what about you? Are you accepting what others are saying?
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Is your nemesis part of your solution?
I have always been a supporter of diversity, both professionally and personally.
Since an early age, my friends have always come from a wide variety of backgrounds, cultures and interests. Often, the only common ground across my varied groups of friends was the fact that they were friends with me.
When I went off to college, I rejected the idea of joining a sorority, despite its philanthropic fundraising efforts and its central role in social life on campus. I felt at that time that any group that had to judge its members prior to being included was not a place I wanted to be. Despite these feelings, I never held it against anybody if they choose to be a part of it. In fact, I had many friends who were actively engaged in a variety of sororities and fraternities.
But, cliques have never been my thing.
I have struggled with the fact that cliques are commonplace in most social structures, especially in the workplace. An unfortunate result of the fundamental human need to belong is the formation of cliques. The intent is not mal-intended, but the result can be detrimental You have the exempt/non-exempt clique. The execultive/non-executive clique. The Manager/non-Manager clique. The Company lifers/ newbies clique. The women/men clique. The Hispanic/non-Hispanic clique. The line job/support job function clique. And the list goes on.
The thing I hate most about cliques is that by mere definition of a clique; you are either in or out. Cliques foster exclusivity and exclusivity always limits progress and productivity.
I was reminded by this on my recent trip to South Africa.
I wasn't particularly attuned to all of the history and details about Apartheid prior to my visit, but being immersed in a post-Apartheid South Africa, it became clear to me that this country is progressing and healing simply because Nelson Mandela saw that the solution required changing the country's clique mentality.
You see no matter what side of the clique you are on, a clique mentality always perpetuates the clique by maintaining the judgments and blame towards the other side.
Mandela saw that it was futile (and common) to perpetuate the clique by blaming the other side. He saw that the other side of the clique ( ie: the white people of South Africa) had to be part of the solution.
Too often, I see the same dynamic at play in the workforce. Cliques continue to exist and don't progress forward because each side keeps the other at bay and in blame of the problem. Women blame men for their career advancement problems. Hispanics blame non-Hispanics for their career problems. Exempts blame non-exempts. And the list goes on.
However, the fact is that your nemesis (the other side of your clique) needs to be part of your solution. Your nemesis must become your ally for the situation to change. Great leaders like Nelson Mandela and Dr. Martin Luther King understood this very well.
Much of my work today supports women entrepreneurs and corporate executives to become more effective leaders. This work can lead to having women-targeted workshops, meetings and events. Many men colleagues and men friends have often given me a hard time about that, feeling that these activities exclude them and other men.
But, this isn't true.
From the inception of many of these seemingly "exclusive groups" there is a fundamental belief that sponsors and members are needed from the other side of the clique to help solve the problems being faced. Perhaps even sororities and fraternities operate under this same premise today. Many men are on my list and many are included on the invitation to attend these events because they can be women's best advocates and are in fact, an essential part of the solution.
So what about you? Can you lead your situation to a better place by making your nemesis an ally and becoming part of your solution?
Since an early age, my friends have always come from a wide variety of backgrounds, cultures and interests. Often, the only common ground across my varied groups of friends was the fact that they were friends with me.
When I went off to college, I rejected the idea of joining a sorority, despite its philanthropic fundraising efforts and its central role in social life on campus. I felt at that time that any group that had to judge its members prior to being included was not a place I wanted to be. Despite these feelings, I never held it against anybody if they choose to be a part of it. In fact, I had many friends who were actively engaged in a variety of sororities and fraternities.
But, cliques have never been my thing.
I have struggled with the fact that cliques are commonplace in most social structures, especially in the workplace. An unfortunate result of the fundamental human need to belong is the formation of cliques. The intent is not mal-intended, but the result can be detrimental You have the exempt/non-exempt clique. The execultive/non-executive clique. The Manager/non-Manager clique. The Company lifers/ newbies clique. The women/men clique. The Hispanic/non-Hispanic clique. The line job/support job function clique. And the list goes on.
The thing I hate most about cliques is that by mere definition of a clique; you are either in or out. Cliques foster exclusivity and exclusivity always limits progress and productivity.
I was reminded by this on my recent trip to South Africa.
I wasn't particularly attuned to all of the history and details about Apartheid prior to my visit, but being immersed in a post-Apartheid South Africa, it became clear to me that this country is progressing and healing simply because Nelson Mandela saw that the solution required changing the country's clique mentality.
You see no matter what side of the clique you are on, a clique mentality always perpetuates the clique by maintaining the judgments and blame towards the other side.
Mandela saw that it was futile (and common) to perpetuate the clique by blaming the other side. He saw that the other side of the clique ( ie: the white people of South Africa) had to be part of the solution.
Too often, I see the same dynamic at play in the workforce. Cliques continue to exist and don't progress forward because each side keeps the other at bay and in blame of the problem. Women blame men for their career advancement problems. Hispanics blame non-Hispanics for their career problems. Exempts blame non-exempts. And the list goes on.
However, the fact is that your nemesis (the other side of your clique) needs to be part of your solution. Your nemesis must become your ally for the situation to change. Great leaders like Nelson Mandela and Dr. Martin Luther King understood this very well.
Much of my work today supports women entrepreneurs and corporate executives to become more effective leaders. This work can lead to having women-targeted workshops, meetings and events. Many men colleagues and men friends have often given me a hard time about that, feeling that these activities exclude them and other men.
But, this isn't true.
From the inception of many of these seemingly "exclusive groups" there is a fundamental belief that sponsors and members are needed from the other side of the clique to help solve the problems being faced. Perhaps even sororities and fraternities operate under this same premise today. Many men are on my list and many are included on the invitation to attend these events because they can be women's best advocates and are in fact, an essential part of the solution.
So what about you? Can you lead your situation to a better place by making your nemesis an ally and becoming part of your solution?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Are you a good follower?
As far back as I can remember, I was a fairly intense, passionate and determined person.
I remember my equally intense, passionate and determined brother telling me "take a chill pill, Laura." I assure you that coming from him, it was the kettle calling the pot black.
But, looking back, he was right, I did need to chill. I was actually more intense than him, if that was at all possible.
I didn't realize that my intensity had a lot to do with my strong desire to tackle challenges and succeed; wanting to drive things, all things, forward to where and how I wanted them.
After all, I liked getting results and I thought I knew what it took to get them.
My competitive intensity poured into my life on all fronts; academics, work, sports and travel. You could say that what charged me up more than anything was conquering life single-handedly, or at least trying to.
I was a full-fledged, self reliant, steam rolling woman on a mission to get results.Growing up in the '60's and '70's I had internalized a strong feminist message that I didn't really need anybody in order to succeed.
I believed that self-reliance was the key component to success. I saw that needing others or relying on others was considered a sign of weakness.
Being a follower was a dirty word.
When I entered the workforce, there were many bosses whose jobs I aspired to have. I always wanted to be in their shoes. I didn't want to follow them, I wanted to be them. I wanted to be the boss and to "lead."
"Lead, follow or get out of the way" for me was "Follow me and get out of the way". I was fortunate to have many bosses that did give me the freedom to excel and flourish. I think they understood the value in doing so especially because they saw me as a "go-getter".
Thank goodness for me and for them that they were effective leaders and didn't try to stand in my way or micro-manage me. And so I blossomed and grew into having more and more responsibility.
But as I gained more leadership responsibility, I started to see that the way I had excelled in the past wasn't getting me the results I needed in the future. That self-reliance at all costs, worked in the short run, but then it got in my way as it began to demotivate others around me. It became a liability.
Since I hadn't learned how to be a good follower, I was being hampered at becoming an effective leader.
But then I remembered an important lesson I had learned (and forgotten) about the importance of following others.
I drew back on my High School Field Hockey days and remembered my coach saying "when the team captain calls the play, you all must follow through. The team won't win if you all don't follow her lead."
You see the lesson about being a good follower is a lot like being a good leader, it doesn't really matter who scores the goal.
My coach got that. My bosses got that.
What matters most is the end result.
After all, being a leader and being a follower are two sides of the same coin. Sometimes you lead by following. And sometime you follow by leading.
You can't do one effectively without understanding the other. So, next time you think that being a follower is a dirty word, think again.
How well are you following?
I remember my equally intense, passionate and determined brother telling me "take a chill pill, Laura." I assure you that coming from him, it was the kettle calling the pot black.
But, looking back, he was right, I did need to chill. I was actually more intense than him, if that was at all possible.
I didn't realize that my intensity had a lot to do with my strong desire to tackle challenges and succeed; wanting to drive things, all things, forward to where and how I wanted them.
After all, I liked getting results and I thought I knew what it took to get them.
My competitive intensity poured into my life on all fronts; academics, work, sports and travel. You could say that what charged me up more than anything was conquering life single-handedly, or at least trying to.
I was a full-fledged, self reliant, steam rolling woman on a mission to get results.Growing up in the '60's and '70's I had internalized a strong feminist message that I didn't really need anybody in order to succeed.
I believed that self-reliance was the key component to success. I saw that needing others or relying on others was considered a sign of weakness.
Being a follower was a dirty word.
When I entered the workforce, there were many bosses whose jobs I aspired to have. I always wanted to be in their shoes. I didn't want to follow them, I wanted to be them. I wanted to be the boss and to "lead."
"Lead, follow or get out of the way" for me was "Follow me and get out of the way". I was fortunate to have many bosses that did give me the freedom to excel and flourish. I think they understood the value in doing so especially because they saw me as a "go-getter".
Thank goodness for me and for them that they were effective leaders and didn't try to stand in my way or micro-manage me. And so I blossomed and grew into having more and more responsibility.
But as I gained more leadership responsibility, I started to see that the way I had excelled in the past wasn't getting me the results I needed in the future. That self-reliance at all costs, worked in the short run, but then it got in my way as it began to demotivate others around me. It became a liability.
Since I hadn't learned how to be a good follower, I was being hampered at becoming an effective leader.
But then I remembered an important lesson I had learned (and forgotten) about the importance of following others.
I drew back on my High School Field Hockey days and remembered my coach saying "when the team captain calls the play, you all must follow through. The team won't win if you all don't follow her lead."
You see the lesson about being a good follower is a lot like being a good leader, it doesn't really matter who scores the goal.
My coach got that. My bosses got that.
What matters most is the end result.
After all, being a leader and being a follower are two sides of the same coin. Sometimes you lead by following. And sometime you follow by leading.
You can't do one effectively without understanding the other. So, next time you think that being a follower is a dirty word, think again.
How well are you following?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Is Losing Yourself Necessary for Leadership?
I grew up in a tight, European household.
We were a total of 7 living under one roof which included my maternal grandparents. I was taught many of the "old world" values where the collective needs always came before the individual. I was taught that a family was not a summation of individuals, but rather an entity unto itself. Boundaries were never clear between "me" and "we".
You could say that I started life without a real clear sense of myself, because it was intertwined with the needs and expectations of my family and my extended communal "colony" comprised of 50 other families who emigrated together from Spain.
My internal household reality was at odds with the external world where I spent my childhood on Long Island, NY during the '60s and '70s. Our country was built on an individualistic spirit; one where we were taught the importance of following your own passions, purpose and dreams. A place where every person can "do anything you set your sights on." A place where our founding fathers dreamt every individual could flourish.
My family upbringing caused a conflict and struggle in me relative to my outside world where individualism was the order of the day. That struggle continued well into my adult life, particularly in my working life where I came face-to-face with the leadership challenges of the seemingly-at-odd priorities of "we vs. me."
It is no surprise that when I came across two articles recently, that I had a strong reaction to their messages. The first one was an article by Bill Taylor "We is bigger than me" where he states "the true measure of success is not the value you create for yourself but the values that define your work and how you lead and live."
I happen to agree with his statement. To lead your life effectively, you can't be completely self-centered. You need to see the broader impact beyond yourself.
However, Taylor goes on to say that "This is the age of the maverick, the startup, and, dare I say it, as the cofounder of Fast Company, "The Brand Called You." That is why it's so easy to focus on the magazine covers, the IPO wealth, the personal narratives." What Taylor is missing here is that some of this rugged individualism is required to ultimately connect with the "We" which in this case is a target audience. Achieving a brand called YOU, means that you have understood the intersection of your brilliance and core strengths with the needs of your target to deliver on their needs.
Achieving a Brand called YOU is the ultimate challenge of melding the needs of "we and me", which requires you to step outside of yourself to deliver on the needs of others. This is the work of a business leader.
The second article by David Brooks "It's not about you" (which Taylor references in his article) reinforces the idea that as leaders we need to "lose ourselves", in other words putting others or the task at hand ahead of ourselves. His message was directed to new graduates, as they step into this world, as newly minted leaders of their lives and careers. Here are some of his words:
"...many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture. But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front.
...Today's grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the center of a life. But, of course, as they age, they'll discover that the tasks of a life are at the center." He concludes his article by saying "The purpose of life is not to find oneself. It is to lose oneself."
While I agree that leadership is a maturation process and that we ultimately do want to lose ourselves to the tasks of life and the needs of others, what Brooks misses here is that losing ourselves can only happen once we have a strong foundation of self.
This profound insight represents one of leadership's counter intuitive truths: In order to lose oneself completely, one has to know oneself completely.
I have seen this in my own personal journey.
The tension I felt between "we and me" can best be described with a continuum. At one extreme end of the continuum there is self-lessness where the "we" rules at the expense of the "me." We can see this in repressed societies around the globe. It is also where many women in our own society can migrate when they feel the relentless expectations to care for others at the expense of their own needs and desires.
On the other extreme of the spectrum is where I believe Taylor and Brooks are advocating "losing oneself" to an area that I call self-interest. A self-interested person has a good sense of themselves and is not threatened easily by others. They are compassionate of others but they can't be walked over either. They are driven by a greater purpose, something bigger than themselves.
Having a healthy self-interest is critical to effective leadership.
In the center of the spectrum is where unfortunately, many people reside and where leadership cannot flourish. Self-centeredness. As infants we start here, after all we enter this world with a need to survive and self-centeredness is essential for survival. However, as adults we need to move beyond self-centeredness. When someone is overly self-centered, they usually don't have a good sense of themselves, they are struggling to know their place and role in life and are easily threatened by others.
Self-centeredness is about self preservation and hanging on to the status quo while fighting heavily to maintain it.
Our individual and collective journeys are to move from self-lessness and self-centeredness areas of the spectrum to develop into healthy self-interest. So, is losing oneself necessary to get there? Yes, but certainly not at the expense of eradicating "me" altogether.
To that point, I would change Brooks' words to say that "The purpose of life is not to find oneself. It is to find oneself then give it away."
We were a total of 7 living under one roof which included my maternal grandparents. I was taught many of the "old world" values where the collective needs always came before the individual. I was taught that a family was not a summation of individuals, but rather an entity unto itself. Boundaries were never clear between "me" and "we".
You could say that I started life without a real clear sense of myself, because it was intertwined with the needs and expectations of my family and my extended communal "colony" comprised of 50 other families who emigrated together from Spain.
My internal household reality was at odds with the external world where I spent my childhood on Long Island, NY during the '60s and '70s. Our country was built on an individualistic spirit; one where we were taught the importance of following your own passions, purpose and dreams. A place where every person can "do anything you set your sights on." A place where our founding fathers dreamt every individual could flourish.
My family upbringing caused a conflict and struggle in me relative to my outside world where individualism was the order of the day. That struggle continued well into my adult life, particularly in my working life where I came face-to-face with the leadership challenges of the seemingly-at-odd priorities of "we vs. me."
It is no surprise that when I came across two articles recently, that I had a strong reaction to their messages. The first one was an article by Bill Taylor "We is bigger than me" where he states "the true measure of success is not the value you create for yourself but the values that define your work and how you lead and live."
I happen to agree with his statement. To lead your life effectively, you can't be completely self-centered. You need to see the broader impact beyond yourself.
However, Taylor goes on to say that "This is the age of the maverick, the startup, and, dare I say it, as the cofounder of Fast Company, "The Brand Called You." That is why it's so easy to focus on the magazine covers, the IPO wealth, the personal narratives." What Taylor is missing here is that some of this rugged individualism is required to ultimately connect with the "We" which in this case is a target audience. Achieving a brand called YOU, means that you have understood the intersection of your brilliance and core strengths with the needs of your target to deliver on their needs.
Achieving a Brand called YOU is the ultimate challenge of melding the needs of "we and me", which requires you to step outside of yourself to deliver on the needs of others. This is the work of a business leader.
The second article by David Brooks "It's not about you" (which Taylor references in his article) reinforces the idea that as leaders we need to "lose ourselves", in other words putting others or the task at hand ahead of ourselves. His message was directed to new graduates, as they step into this world, as newly minted leaders of their lives and careers. Here are some of his words:
"...many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture. But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front.
...Today's grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the center of a life. But, of course, as they age, they'll discover that the tasks of a life are at the center." He concludes his article by saying "The purpose of life is not to find oneself. It is to lose oneself."
While I agree that leadership is a maturation process and that we ultimately do want to lose ourselves to the tasks of life and the needs of others, what Brooks misses here is that losing ourselves can only happen once we have a strong foundation of self.
This profound insight represents one of leadership's counter intuitive truths: In order to lose oneself completely, one has to know oneself completely.
I have seen this in my own personal journey.
The tension I felt between "we and me" can best be described with a continuum. At one extreme end of the continuum there is self-lessness where the "we" rules at the expense of the "me." We can see this in repressed societies around the globe. It is also where many women in our own society can migrate when they feel the relentless expectations to care for others at the expense of their own needs and desires.
On the other extreme of the spectrum is where I believe Taylor and Brooks are advocating "losing oneself" to an area that I call self-interest. A self-interested person has a good sense of themselves and is not threatened easily by others. They are compassionate of others but they can't be walked over either. They are driven by a greater purpose, something bigger than themselves.
Having a healthy self-interest is critical to effective leadership.
In the center of the spectrum is where unfortunately, many people reside and where leadership cannot flourish. Self-centeredness. As infants we start here, after all we enter this world with a need to survive and self-centeredness is essential for survival. However, as adults we need to move beyond self-centeredness. When someone is overly self-centered, they usually don't have a good sense of themselves, they are struggling to know their place and role in life and are easily threatened by others.
Self-centeredness is about self preservation and hanging on to the status quo while fighting heavily to maintain it.
Our individual and collective journeys are to move from self-lessness and self-centeredness areas of the spectrum to develop into healthy self-interest. So, is losing oneself necessary to get there? Yes, but certainly not at the expense of eradicating "me" altogether.
To that point, I would change Brooks' words to say that "The purpose of life is not to find oneself. It is to find oneself then give it away."
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Leadership a la Gaga
Now I have heard it all.
The Economist recently ran an article "The angel and the monster" that drew similarities and differences between Mother Theresa and Lady Gaga.
They went on to state that there are some leadership lessons to be gleaned from Lady Gaga's success. They boiled it down to the fact that she knows her brand and has found a compelling emotional connection point with her target.
Last time I checked, this has more to do with branding than in does leadership "projection" or charisma.
We obviously are struggling for direction in leadership these days, as a recent article in HBS "Why Leaders lose their way" reminds us of the many recent examples of fallen leaders:
-Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigned for submitting false expense reports concerning his relationship with a contractor.
-US Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned after covering up an extramarital affair with monetary payoffs.
-Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of giant mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, in April was found guilty for his role in one of the largest bank fraud schemes in American history
Not to mention Senator John Edwards.
Maybe they tried a little leadership a la Gaga!
All kidding aside, the lessons to be learned here from either Lady Gaga or Mother Theresa is one of conviction and passion. And more importantly having the courage and vulnerability to put it out there. They are so aligned with their passion, they epitomize "what you see see is what you get."
Yet, as we have seen with many of these fallen leaders, they are not who they say they are. They are cowards hiding behind false words. They are far from being vulnerable with their own convictions and passions.
When leaders have conviction and passion, others will follow. But don't waste your time emulating Lady Gaga, or trying to break down the elements of her unique "leadership projection." This is not something that can be copied.
Spend more time uncovering your own conviction and passion based on your own personal journey. Once you find it, then you have to have the courage and vulnerability to put it out there.
This kind of leadership is frightening and not for the faint-of-heart.
Whether you like Lady Gaga's aesthetic or not, what she does have is the ability to be vulnerable and courageous to put her passion and conviction on the line and that's what people connect to. There is no confusion about her message.
I respect that about her.
The Economist recently ran an article "The angel and the monster" that drew similarities and differences between Mother Theresa and Lady Gaga.
They went on to state that there are some leadership lessons to be gleaned from Lady Gaga's success. They boiled it down to the fact that she knows her brand and has found a compelling emotional connection point with her target.
Last time I checked, this has more to do with branding than in does leadership "projection" or charisma.
We obviously are struggling for direction in leadership these days, as a recent article in HBS "Why Leaders lose their way" reminds us of the many recent examples of fallen leaders:
-Hewlett-Packard CEO Mark Hurd resigned for submitting false expense reports concerning his relationship with a contractor.
-US Senator John Ensign (R-NV) resigned after covering up an extramarital affair with monetary payoffs.
-Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of giant mortgage lender Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, in April was found guilty for his role in one of the largest bank fraud schemes in American history
Not to mention Senator John Edwards.
Maybe they tried a little leadership a la Gaga!
All kidding aside, the lessons to be learned here from either Lady Gaga or Mother Theresa is one of conviction and passion. And more importantly having the courage and vulnerability to put it out there. They are so aligned with their passion, they epitomize "what you see see is what you get."
Yet, as we have seen with many of these fallen leaders, they are not who they say they are. They are cowards hiding behind false words. They are far from being vulnerable with their own convictions and passions.
When leaders have conviction and passion, others will follow. But don't waste your time emulating Lady Gaga, or trying to break down the elements of her unique "leadership projection." This is not something that can be copied.
Spend more time uncovering your own conviction and passion based on your own personal journey. Once you find it, then you have to have the courage and vulnerability to put it out there.
This kind of leadership is frightening and not for the faint-of-heart.
Whether you like Lady Gaga's aesthetic or not, what she does have is the ability to be vulnerable and courageous to put her passion and conviction on the line and that's what people connect to. There is no confusion about her message.
I respect that about her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
