Fresh Thoughts on Leadership

Leader as Chief Talent Officer

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:40:00 +0000

I'm starting to really "get it" regarding the importance of having talented people on your team. Now that I say that, it sounds very obvious however it's more top of mind for me now than it ever has been. As a result, I'm spending more time on talent issues that I have in the past.

What got me thinking about talent? Frankly it was something of a lucky break. On last year's board we had somebody who had to leave after a couple of months, in part due to medical reasons. And so we advertised for replacement for her role, and soon found ourselves with two amazing candidates. And so we took them both on the board, creating an additional role.

Both of these people have shown me how powerful it is to have talented people on your team. The most obvious "before and after" case has to do with our events chair. Prior to her arrival, our organization had done a reasonably good job of putting on an annual conference, but had absolutely struggled with doing medium-sized monthly events. It had been talked about for a long time, but nobody really knew how to do them. Sometimes they would be tried with mixed results, but more often than not, nothing happened.

Then our new events chair join the team and very soon after put together a "Winter social" event at a local gallery. She wrote the description in a certain way, she found just the right venue, and she leverage the contact to bring great wine. I was cautiously optimistic about the event, and then absolutely blown away when we had about 50 people attend. Prior to that, if we'd had 20 people show up we would have considered it a success. In the three events that she's organized since then have been similarly dynamic and well attended.

Now I have to tell you that in my first year on the board, I was the events chair. I really didn't know how to do it and neither did anyone else on the board, and so in terms of monthly events, the things I tried didn't go very well. Just consider that this is the same organization, the same community, just a different events chair and the events are like night and day in terms of their success. Clearly there is something that she knows that makes a difference.

But for my role as board president, I'm getting more and more clear about how critical it is for me to develop the talent that is on the board, and also to help recruit the best talent I can find for next year's board. Although the success of the organization ultimately depends on the degree to which we can engage the community in our organization, the board will be the ones leading the charge in making that happen.

Better talent --- better results.

“The President’s Binder”

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:23:00 +0000

Consider the idea in your position as a leader, that the organization you lead will be around much longer than your tenure. After you go, eventually, the wheels on the bus will keep turning. No big deal, right? Your team will remain, the learnings of your business will be passed on.

But now consider that at some point in the future, perhaps sooner than you think, everybody on your executive team will have moved on. Now the question is whether the insights that you’ve gained, as individuals and as a team, will be passed along in a useful way for consideration by a future team. And if not, why won’t that future team just run into the same old problems, and try the same old solutions?

On June 1^st I stepped into a one year team as board president for a Bay Area professional network. One of the traditions of our board is that the outgoing and incoming presidents meet for a meal to do the handover of “The President’s Binder.” And with the words “Paul, now this binder is in your hands,” Andrew had the biggest smile I’ve seen in the three years I’ve known him. I imagine he felt lighter—Andrew was in fact president of the organization for the past two years.

In looking through the binder, it really came home to me that several generations of boards (which for our organization are really combined boards/management teams) had done all of the things that we’re doing. They’d done strategic planning, created visions for the future, and put a lot of work into the organizations. What struck me was how few of the initiatives had “took hold” and resulted in lasting programs or infrastructure. And so I had to ask myself “what happened?” as well as “why will my year be any different?”

A unique challenge for non-profit boards is that in California, board terms are limited to three years. This is great in that it keeps the board fresh and changing, however it creates a big challenge for organizational learning. Although all organizations face this in one way or another, the three year turnover is striking.

I’ve created a shared succession planning worksheet that projects the membership of the board in future years. In June of 2012, everybody from the current board will be gone. Will they be building on the work we’re doing now, or will they do something totally different? Will they be moving forward, or stumbling over the same challenges that we’re solving right now?

And so this brings me back to the binder. It is if anything a reality check for an incoming leader—it is humbling to see all that’s been tried before. I see it as my duty as the current president to add to the binder so that future boards can benefit from the learnings that we’re going through every day.

One tool I'm using, among several otheres, to meet this need to pass along these learnings, is an online archive. The way it works is that we simply forward key emails to a special email address, and have those emails kept in a secure, searchable archive. In this way, I hope to create an online “binder” for future boards to add to and reference.

Having said that, I think that the tradition of the “passing of the binder” should remain. An online archive has many advantages, but being handed a binder that’s a decade old? That hits home.

Let’s face it: People can tell.

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:31:00 +0000

I’ve been playing with the idea, recently, that nothing is really “hidden.” That at a deep level, that which we think we can hide from the world, from other people is actually “out there.” And it can be detected, if not consciously, then subconsciously, by those around us.

Wow, so if there’s truth to this, it’s a game changer. Why? Well for one, it means that “fake it till you make it” and “don’t say you’re nervous, nobody can tell” are…risky. Both of these strategies assume that such deception works, and is effective.

Take for example the case of a leader who is worried about the viability of their business given the economy. (Not much of a stretch, is it?) Such a leader could be outwardly very upbeat, while inwardly worried. I propose that rather than reassuring or inspiring people, such deception will cause more worry.

People pick up on the subtle tension, and when they realize that the outward surface message doesn’t match the more subtle signs, then they really get worried.

That “something is a bit off here” sense can go in any number of directions. Such projections could be personalized, as in “Did I do something wrong?” Or they could lead to paranoia, like “What are you hiding?” Or even a more subtle sense that “something just isn’t right.”

But the solution isn’t as simple as a leader vocalizing every worrying thought in their head. Such thoughts are too easy to take out of context, and amplify into a more worried team that gets paralyzed or starts looking for an exit.

So what is the art of leadership in tough times? I believe the art as a leader is to get clarity on what I see going on around me, how it’s impacting me, and where I see opportunities to move forward. These days it might sound like “Yes, the economy is bad. Yes this could have a serious impact on our business. Yes I don’t like it, and I am worried. Here are my ideas on how we move forward.”

I assert that such authenticity, paired with thoughtful introspection and planning, is reassuring and inspiring to a group. Although hard truth can be initially frightening, it is ultimately compelling, and critical to turning a corner.

So the next time that you approach a difficult issue with your group, ask yourself:

“Am I trying to hide something? If so, how will that go over when it’s detected?”
“How can I be authentic about this challenge, while also being progressive about a solution to it?”

Authenticity is more than a good idea—it’s a law. And there is a body of very interesting research on how well people are able to deceive others. More on that later.

The blog is back

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:27:00 +0000

Wow, a lot has happened in six months. A new president, a new financial crisis. And I've been busy, as well.

Eran and I have been working hard to form future research and teaching directions for Supportive Listening.

I have also been very actively involved as a board member of the Bay Area Organization Development Network. It is very exciting to see the organization become more active and vibrant.

In the midst of this activity, I've realized that I do miss the blog. The freshness faded, but now it's back! I have things to write about.

The Fruits of Staying Neutral in the Triangle

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:11:00 +0000

A recent New York Times article about Barack Obama’s time at the University of Chicago Law school got me thinking about triangles.

The article talks about how Senator Obama would listen carefully to the two sides of an argument (the base of the triangle), but stay neutral to those two sides (as the top of the triangle).

Early in the article Richard Epstein, a former colleague is quoted:
“His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he’s always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he’s never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings.”

And later on the article states:
When two fellow faculty members asked him to support a controversial antigang measure, allowing the Chicago police to disperse and eventually arrest loiterers who had no clear reason to gather, Mr. Obama discussed the issue with unusual thoughtfulness, they say, but gave little sign of who should prevail.

A couple of things strike me here.

The first is the potential power of being that neutral presence between two opposing – and even polarized – parties. In being a skilled neutral presence and a good listener, one could bring the discussion to another level by giving both sides a generous audience with which to clarify their thoughts.

Is a heated argument really helped by having more people to argue one side or the other with added eloquence or conviction? I doubt it – give me a great listener any day and the process has a much better chance of moving forward.

The second thing that strikes me is that Senator Obama’s neutrality is regarded with a certain disdain. As if it’s a sin to be neutral on an issue. Yet I wonder if taking stands comes at a cost, and as such is an endeavor to take on carefully and intentionally. “Pick your battles” if you will

I could see how such a positioning could be seen as frustrating for an intellectual, and yet be very pragmatic. It leaves me to wonder if I too readily take stands, especially on polarized issues, and that what cost. Perhaps I can benefit from more often being neutral in the triangle.

Leadership, community, and reaching out

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 19:12:00 +0000

One of my passions is dancing in Argentine tango. And because it “takes two to tango” dancing tango means being part of the tango community. I have had the opportunity to visit and be a part of many different tango communities, and I’ve begun puzzling over why one community feels so different from the next.

I don’t have “the answer” but I have noticed something. In every community there are people who are the de facto leaders – because they are organizers, or they have been around for a long time, or they are exceptionally talented. And the way in which they interact with the rest of the community, especially new people, has a big impact on the vibe of the group.

I was recently visiting Eran in Philadelphia and we went out to a milonga. Within about five minutes of my arrival, a kindly Italian gentleman introduced himself and asked me where I was from. He was extremely welcoming, friendly, and encouraging.

Furthermore he checked back with me through the night a couple of times to see how I was feeling. It isn’t always easy to walk into a room full of strangers, and so getting a good welcome makes a big difference. And I’ve found that as the evening progressed, most people there were also pretty friendly. I believe that the leaders of this community had set the tone.

So what does this mean for me as the leader? I naturally tend to be a bit introverted. And so it wouldn’t be my first impulse as a de facto community leader to reach out to people, introduced myself, and help them get comfortable in the room. And yet it can make such a huge difference for helping a nice community to get rolling.

Leaders can make a big difference for a community by setting a norm of being welcoming and reaching out – connecting.

Naming confusion and emotional fusion

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:50:00 +0000

Eran and I have been teaching an in-depth class on Supportive Listening over the past few months. And in the class discussions about the at times irresistible urge to give advice, we've talked about emotional fusion, or fusion for short.

The one liner on emotional fusion is this:

Emotional fusion is when the boundaries between two people become blurred to the extent that it's unclear where one ends and the other begins.

Much more on this later. For now, I found a fascinating New York times article about how some Barrack Obama supporters are taking on his middle name, Hussein as a show of solidarity.

On the hand, sure, Obama's getting a rough time from hard core conservatives about a given middle name that doesn't play well in part of the country. And some of his supporters want to take a stand and say "this isn't right." Fine.

But it seems very "fusiony" to me to then take on that name as well. Seems to blur the boundaries between self and other. This is one symptom of Obama-mania--supporters who take on his name.

Whether I support Obama or not is beside the point--the broader issue is that there is a man running for president, and a phenomenon around him. Something special is happening, and everyone picks up on that--even those (especially those?) who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

It leads me to wonder, in the midst of such emotional intensity, and the resulting fusion, where this energy may lead, and what the guy at the center, Mr. Obama, would be wise to do about it.

Pitfalls of Research

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:05:00 +0000

The world's understanding of leadership, at a detailed level, is anecdotal at best. Sometimes we can point to someone and say "now there's a good leader." But how do we know? And how did they get that way?

Cutting-edge research, such as the use of fMRI scans of brains, has great promise to unlock the mysteries of leadership. I believe that we need strong links to hard science of some kind to build a foundation upon which to move the field of leadership development forward. Things we can measure that go beyond one's whim on a multiple choice scale on any given day.

But of course it will take some time as the field sorts out the new research data and methods. In the mean time, what's happening is that research is quoted several times down the chain, and by the time it ends up in the newspaper, it can be very distorted.

My friend and colleague Eran Magen has been fantastic about pointing out to me my own faults of what I think is "proven" and "understood" from brain research. For example you may have heard of the "evils" of the amygdala, which is blamed for "hijacking" people's reasoning in times of crisis.

This was supposedly deduced by studies in which the subjects are being scanned, and then are put through a stressful situation, and asked to make choices. Sure enough, the amygdala lights up, and they make dumb choices. Cut and dried, right? Ah, but the problem is that the amygdala "lights up" (gets a lot of blood flow) in really different situations, too. Rather than being a panic button, it could simply be something that activates when the brain thinks something important is happening, be it dangerous or otherwise.

Here's the key point I want to leave you with--be cautious of any research that you hear quoted, especially from a distance, that makes a clear, simple, definitive conclusion about human behavior and leadership. We're still in the early days.

How surfers deal with intensity

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:39:00 +0000

Have you heard of Mavericks? It's the big surfing competition near Santa Cruz, California that happens in winter, depending on predicted wave conditions. The organizers watch for just the right time, and if it happens, then they call the surfers, and the competition starts 3 days later. Some years the contest doesn't happen. But it did this January.

If you haven't seen the pictures, have a look--the waves are a big. As you might imagine, it is actually dangerous. The waves can reach 30 feet, crest to height. In fact in 1994, legendary surfer Mark Foo died in the waves at Maverick. It's for real.

Now picture it--you're a surfer competing in Maverick and you've made it to the final 5. There is prize money on the line, IN ADDITION to huge, exhilarating, but dangerous waves. Faced with this situation, the final 5 in this year's contest made a very interesting decision going into the final: they agreed to split the prize money.

huh? What happened to competition? To winning?

I have a speculation. I wonder if these guys wanted to just take the money out of the equation, reduce the intensity.

Why? To be looser, have more fun, and of course be more capable in the waves. A better chance at flow. I mean the stakes are already high enough, so why not take the money out of the equation, and be left with just good, clean competition? I wonder, too, if the high physical stakes creates a certain kinship.

Read for yourself and see what you think.

Leadership in the Animal Kingdom

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:44:00 +0000

Human beings can spend a lot of time asking questions like "What is good leadership?" All other animals, on the other hand, have to just "do" leadership, without the pained, searching discussions. And the quality of that leadership greatly impacts their quality of life, and even survival.

I've been reading a lot about leadership in the wild, particularly amongst chimpanzees and gorillas. I'm finding valuable lessons from how leadership works in these primate groups, and getting much more comfortable with some of the realities of human leadership that I see around me.

There is an amazing documentary called "A Family of Chimps" which follows a group of chimpanzees living in the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands. What makes this group unique is that they are allowed to interact together as a large group during the day, and thus they form social structures similar to what they'd create in the wild. It is a premier place to observe chimpanzee group behavior.

In the course of the documentary, many key leadership responsibilities are shown.

enforcing the rules of the group. Groups members are always observing one another, and noting who is doing what to whom. Thus when one group member harasses another "without cause," he is punished by the leader.
distributing resources. When the zoo keepers provide a windfall of lettuce, the leader watches who is getting what, and makes sure the lettuce is shared according to the power structure of the group.
being the boss. When his leadership is challenged, the leader stands up to show "I'm still the leader here," which gives the group confidence that someone is in charge. Animal groups know instinctively that when nobody is in charge, they are in great danger, and thus they instinctively rush to fill that vacuum.

It has been documented that in primate groups, the level of stress for all in the group is highest during a leadership transition, especially at that point where it isn't clear who is in charge. Thus the group seems to benefit greatly from an "executive function" to see to it that rules are carried out, and in general that order is kept.

Yes, leadership matters.

Making peace with self interest

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:37:00 +0000

There is a fantasy in the popular literature on leadership. It goes something like this, "If only everyone were trustworthy enough, and would trust one another sufficiently then all of our leadership problems would be solved.”

This sounds good on paper, it is certainly an interesting philosophical topic to discuss. However the real world demands a much more nuanced understanding of trust.

Many books are built on an underlying assumption that everyone can and should be trusted. And further that this lack of trust is the key element to focus on—and eliminate—within organizations.

I have a proposal which some may consider bold. Self interest is inherent in the human condition, and can never fully be eliminated. Furthermore trying to get rid of self interest is not a good idea. In fact it is when we ignore our own needs and simply try to serve everyone else that we lose balance and perspective.

There are organizations, corporate, academic, and spiritual, that champion this idea of blind trust of all. I wonder, “What happens within those organizations when there is conflict? When people in leadership see things in different ways?”

If there is a notion of being “in line” with what is right, what happens when two people believe that they are in alignment with what is right and yet they see things very differently? What happens then?

I propose that the road forward is to accept self interest as a given, to talk about it, and to actively and smartly manage around this reality of life. In that way, we can be most conscious and conscientious towards both taking care of ourselves, and finding good solutions for conflictual situations.

Do-it-yourself 360 feedback

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:42:00 +0000

David Nguyen, a friend of mine from business school, is working on an innovative system for doing surveys within companies. He asked me what I'd use it for, and I immediately thought of the 360 feedback process.

In a typical 360, for instance for leadership skills, a leadership survey is sent to the leader's manager, peers, and direct reports. The number of people surveyed is typically 6 or more. The data is submitted anonymously and then tallied for the leader to review.

This process can give leaders two things. Most obviously they get a survey of how they are perceived as a leader, which could include information on problems that they weren't aware of.

The other benefit is more subtle--it creates a great opening for a leader to develop better connection with those around him by asking for further input, 1 on 1, based on the rolled up results of the survey. There is great potential here.

Here's one challenge--it can be an expensive and time-consuming process, to set up the 360, have everyone fill out 100+ item surveys, and bring in the consultant to administer the whole thing.

Thus I see an opportunity to use a system like David's to do my own 360 feedback process. To make such a process work, here are the key questions that I've asked myself, and my answers to them.

1. What’s my goal in doing this survey?
I have two goals, really. One is to build connection with the people who I collaborate with the most. The other related goal is to come away with two concrete things to work on in order to be a more effective collaborator.

2. What area do I want to focus the survey on?
Within the general topic of collaboration, I’d the questions to focus on my skills in two specific areas: how I am as a partner for coming up with new ideas, and how I am when it comes to making collaborative decisions. Along those lines, I’ll need to find a well-built survey which asks practical questions in this areas.

3. Who am I going to ask?
I’m going to ask the people who I work most closely with. Fortunately these are all people who I trust and have great respect for. Because this is the first time that I’m trying this process using a survey, it’s especially important to me that I work with a group I can readily trust.

4. Will I do this survey only one time, regularly, or on-going?
I’m going to do this survey once and see how it goes. If the process shows promise, I could see asking colleagues to participate with me twice a year. The key thing for me is that I’d want to be able to capture these results as a one-time “package” so that I can compare them as a set with future results.

5. What will I do with the survey results?
I’ll first look at areas of agreement amongst the raters, regarding strengths and weaknesses. From those I’ll identify two specific areas that I want to work on. Then I’ll schedule an initial conversation with one of my raters, to ask for one on one input on those areas. Based on that conversation, I’ll schedule time with other raters.

My take is that the key here is to start small, simple, and with low stakes. If I can get value from the first experience, then it positions me to try more next time.

A leaderless organization?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:09:00 +0000

The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra was featured in a New York Times article because of their peculiar organizational structure: the orchestra has no conductor.

I've seen this article held up as an example that says "aha, a well functioning group with no leader!" And yet upon closer inspection, there is more to the situation than first meets the eye.

First off with no conductor, each member of the group takes on more responsibility for knowing the music as a whole, including the parts of others. Thus they become better tuned into one another, and less dependent on an authority figure to think for them. This is just good practice.

Also there is in fact a concertmaster for each piece of work, although the role rotates. Thus it looks like at any given time, there is someone at the "head" of the group, albeit a self-responsible group that can think for itself. Plus there are smaller core groups, within which the leadership roles rotate.

And then there is a board of directors, an executive committee, and an executive director. Thus the organizations has structure.

I propose that what's really different here is that although there is a stable "backbone" at the executive level, at the level of music leadership the head person changes. Furthermore the whole orchestra takes responsibility and thinks like leaders.

Ed Friedman, who greatly influenced my thinking on leadership, used to often say that groups become too dependent on leaders, especially charismatic ones, that it is bad for both sides. Thus I'd say that the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, rather than getting rid of leadership, is redefining how it is done.

It still leaves the question, "Why does that need for leading exist at all?"

Leadership: be clear, keep it simple

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:48:00 +0000

I was recently coaching three groups of high school seniors who were leading teams of freshmen through a series of team-building activities. I noted that the leaders were having really different experiences with their groups, and I wondered, "what makes the difference?"

One set of leaders in particular got me wondering. I admired their courage--they didn't have much leadership experience and yet they were in there, doing their best. And they had the most demanding team to lead as well--very energetic, very vocal. I noticed that the leaders weren't sure about which activity to lead next--they got hesitant.

The team seemed to pick up on this hesitancy, and they soon got impatient. "Come on, what are we going to do next?" And soon after that, they started shouting out their own suggestions. The leaders just weren't sure what the "right" activity was to do next.

At this point I remembered a lesson I learned from dancing as a follower in Argentine tango. Before I learned to follow, I would fret a lot about what the "best" moves to lead were as a leader. I would think "is this interesting enough? complex enough?"

But once I started to follow, I realized that I didn't care about the complexity at all. What really mattered to me was a good connection and a clear lead. If I had that, I didn't care if the moves were extremely simple--the connection and the clarity was more than enough.

And so I asked these student leaders what they thought the team needed. They talked to the team and found out that they wanted something active, and then we came up with a very simple game that involved two outlets for energy: running and noise.

And so with a sense of clarity, the leaders led this very simple game, which responded to the needs of the group. It worked! The energy shifted, and through clearly leading a simple activity, the leaders built their credibility with the team.

Leadership through self differentiation

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 03:13:00 +0000

I have been struggling with my responsibilities as a volunteer board member. Even just to say that is difficult. And at the same time, a relief.

Many professional organizations are run by volunteer boards. The people who join these boards tend to be over functioners--the types to get things done, take things on. I count myself as one of those types of people. Sounds quite complementary so far, right?

And I also see a tendency to buckle down and do things on my own. To take responsibility for everything, and to feel badly when things aren't moving forward. To feel like "I'm not doing enough, I need to do more."

I finally reached a point about a month ago when I said "no more--I have to get to a different place around how I participate on this board. I'm tired of feeling like I'm failing at this." And with that realization, I've decided on a road forward that I quite like.

The way out is self definition. I've sat down and given much consideration to why I'm on the board, what I want to get out of it, and what *I* would like to see happen. And I've come to some conclusions about what is interesting to me, what I'm willing to take on, what I will commit to. It feels great.

Here's the challenge--I'm expecting pushback of one sort or another. I'm not sure what form it will come in, but I'm pretty sure it'll show up. There are good reasons for a school of fish to all look pretty much the same--there is a safety in uniformity, in being part of the group. Yet leadership requires risk, requires standing out, while still remaining connected to the group.

My bet is that if I stay calm, stay connected to the other members of the board, then they'll get it, they'll go with my strategy, even if it's different from what's been done before, even if I stand out from the crowd because of it.

Getting (a lot) more from leadership development

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:21:00 +0000

How many times have you read a book, gone to a workshop and said "yes, this is useful, I'm going to do this" and then found that, well, nothing happened?

How to explain this? Too busy? Not motivated enough? Sure, those things may play a role, but I think there's something deeper going on that, when clearly understood, is a very powerful platform for growth.

Dr. Jim Loehr, pictured above, wrote a book that outlines a way to have the internal resources to actually implement new ideas. This book, "The Power of Full Engagement- Managing Energy, not Time, is the Key to High Performance and Personal Renewal" is basically summarized in a review on the free portion of this month's Harvard Business Review, which you can find here.

Here's the scoop: Dr. Loehr and a colleague, Dr. Jack Groppel spent many years working with world-class athletes, especially tennis players, to help them perform at their peak. Neither of these gentlemen know anything special about tennis--their speciality is understanding human behavior, and in this case, the power of routines.

What they found is that the top tennis players have very effective routines for building up, using, and then restoring energy. These routines were a key difference between the top players and the rest.

In their book, they give many actual cases of business clients they worked with, and the routines that the clients came up with to be peak performance leaders. As you might guess, these routines cover the basics--exercise, diet, sleep and general stress management.

What they found is extraordinary. In the HBR (Harvard Business Review) article, they show the impact of their program amongst Wachovia employees. And of course in the book, they talk about how their clients ended up with more energy, more focus, more creativity--the key ingredients for working well, and also for growing as a leader.

Here are two ideas from the book that I'm currently trying, and getting good results from. One is that I take a good 15 minute break in the morning, rather than working right through. It works wonders--more than I thought. I find that it effectively gives me another 45 minutes of peak morning time.

The other idea I'm trying is the "power nap." I take about 10 to 15 minutes after lunch to nap, and find that I get an extra hour, if not more, of productive working time in the afternoon.

The book has many more ideas, which I'm in the process of working through. They seem too simple--but when I try them, and pay attention to the results, then I appreciate the full potential of managing energy.

So there you have it--do you want to get more out of your work on growing as a leader? Master the basics--of energy.

video: 3 Peak Performance Secrets

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:26:00 +0000

One of the most fundamental things that anyone can do for their leadership skills is basic: figure out how to feel great, day after day.

This is the stuff of peak performance athletes, and with books like The Corporate Athlete and The Power of Full Engagement these ideas are being used in companies, too.

It seems basic enough--eat well, exercise, meditate and you'll feel good, perform well. So I have to ask myself--why don't I do more of this?

Taking the example of diet, I think it comes down to this: if I eat well and then I feel well, I probably won't notice. But if I eat poorly, usually won't impact me right away--it takes a few hours, and by then I'm much less likely to link how I feel to what I ate. And if my eating habits go downhill, it may take a few weeks for the full impact of that to hit me. Thus the connection between diet and performance can be hard to realize.

With this talk, I present some of the research that I found that shows the benefits of these basics. My hope is that by having this research in mind, I'll be more likely to do these things, and as a result feel good and perform well.

video: 3 Secrets of Peak Performance Leaders

video: How to Avoid Leadership

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:31:00 +0000

Yesterday I got a last minute opportunity to speak to a local group on the topic of
leadership. And so I decided to try something different.

Instead of saying what I believe is true about being a good leader, I set up the talk so that I said the opposite of what I believe works. And thus the premise of "how to avoid getting put into a leadership position."

It was a fun talk to give, and the audience enjoyed it. I think what makes a paradoxical talk work is that it helps people relax, focus, and see themselves in my tips on what to NOT do.

If you are working to develop your leadership skills, watch the video and consider if you are currently using any of these "tips."

video: Practical Tips to Avoid Positions of Leadership

video: A new way to face challenge

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:43:00 +0000

I've certainly heard my share of inspiration talks about facing challenge. A lot of them come down to this:

"Just push your fear aside and move forward! That's what successful people do."

There's just one problem: for me it doesn't work.

I end up having a bad time of things, I doubt myself even more, it makes me less motivated in facing challenge the next time.

The good news? There is an alternative. And the other day I got a chance to try it.

I was on a ropes course, 30 feet in the air, trying to walk across a log. And I was scared. My legs weren't cooperating. After at least 10 minutes of struggle, I decided to try a novel approach...

video: A new way to face challenge

How to build trust--smartly

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 17:11:00 +0000

Who can you trust, and how do you know? This was the topic of my first series of articles for the SV Project Management website earlier this year.

And the next question--once you've decided to move forward, how do you make trust work? If I simply say"I trust you," without doing the appropriate work to understand what that means to both of us, then the road ahead will be rocky. It doesn't have to be.

Day 1: What sinks many trust relationships?

Day 2: Are we even hearing each other?

Day 3: What makes it tough to drive clarity, and what can I do about it?

Day 4: Points of conflict are great opportunities--do you know how to leverage them?

Day 5: A summary of the week.

In future I plan to say more about this topic. If there are specific issues you'd like to hear about, please let me know.

video: What to do about emotional pressure

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:32:00 +0000

I recently gave a talk titled "Standing up to emotional pressure." This has turned out to be a very popular topic which many people can relate to.

In my talk, I give an example where I faced a major challenge with a friend. I discuss how I "survived" the situation in a way that not only relieved the pressure on me, but enabled my friend to grow.

Then to close, I give a general model of the three resources that one can draw on when facing emotional pressure.

Enjoy the talk.

video: Standing Up to Emotional Pressure

Who can I trust?

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Fri, 18 May 2007 16:17:00 +0000

Trust in the workplace is one of those awkward issues.

On the one hand there are endless books and workshops that basically say:
"If only everyone would open up and trust, wouldn't the world be a better place? Why don't we all do that right now!"

But then there I am, in a real live workplace and I see that it isn't that simple. There are, on occasion, people I need to treat with great care--don't let them get behind you!

I've seen the following cycle: someone tries the "just open and trust" method--does this with someone who can't be trusted--gets burned--says "you just can't trust anyone these days." It's a pity.

There is great potential in trust--when it's applied with the right people, and built smartly. It takes work.

I had a great opportunity earlier this year to write a week of blogs for the Silicon Valley Project Management blog on the topic of trust. I focused on the challenge "how do you figure out who is trustable?" at the most basic level.

Day 1: I kicked off the week with my favorite joke about trust workshops.

Day 2: I wrote about how to explore if trust is appropriate.

Day 3: I told a story of what happened to me when I trusted a new GM at work too much, too quickly.

And in the final entry of the week, I summed it up and said "ok, once you've decided that someone is trustable, how do you make the arrangement work?"

I'm happy with how the blog entries came out. I feel that I addressed an important topic in a realistic way, and gave my readers useful things to consider in their real life challenges.

video: Collaborative leadership and tango

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:18:00 +0000

A few months ago I did a five minute talk about my experience of leading in Argentine Tango, and how I've applied those learnings to leadership in general.

Watch the video and let me know your thoughts. Have you noticed this type of lead-follow connection in your leadership interactions?

video: Tango as collaborative leadership

Even in Tango, both are leading.

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:38:00 +0000

Argentine tango is a great way to look at leadership. Why? Because structurally it is set up to be very clear about who is the leader, and who is the follower.

Furthermore, both people in this partnership have clear responsibilities. It’s true—it does “take two to tango,” and dancing helps me remember that in other areas of my life.

A common view of leadership is that it’s a top-down thing. Leadership is for CEO’s, it’s for managers. As if everyone else can just relax, let go, and not have any responsibility! In the way that I define leadership, everybody is invited to the party. Although in my experience, not everyone shows up.

In my view, there is leadership responsibility any time I’m interacting with another person. That isn’t to say that I’m always deciding what’s going to happen. But rather I have a responsibilities. What am I talking about?

An example: I’m dancing with my friend Leslie. She is leading, I’m following. Yes, she is responsible to let me know the next step. And to make sure we don’t crash into anyone.

So am I off the hook?

No, I have lots to do.

I need to make sure I stay well connected. I need to be sensitive to her lead, interpreting what she wants. I need to maintain my own balance, and not lean on her.
And at a less technical level, if she’s grasping my hand too tightly, I need to ask her to loosen it.

It's a collaboration.

Yes there is hierarchy, yes there are positional responsibilities. Just as importantly, there are individual, interpersonal responsibilities to take on.

It's up to me whether or not I take them on.

Introduction to a Connected View

noreply@blogger.com (Paul Konasewich) — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 06:12:00 +0000

What is leadership?

How does it work? What can I do to be a better leader?

In this blog, I’ll be looking at the phenomenon of interpersonal leadership from many different angles. Here are my favorites:

Self: over and over again, I see that interactions between people, especially in the area of leadership, are grounded in core beliefs and values.

Hard science: during a leadership interaction, what’s going on physiologically, neurologically for the two people involved? Are they interacting through the words, or at a much deeper level? Perhaps hard science can provide a useful description of the question “What is leadership?”

Nature: what can we learn from animals that could inform our understanding of a “leadership instinct” in humans? Could it give us clues about what really matters in a good leader?

Everyday life: I see leadership, at all different levels, around me all the time. Be it at work, at home, or on the dance floor there is much to be observed and learned. At the end of the day, any ideas about leadership are only as useful as their application in the real world.

I'd like to hear from you--I invite your comments.