"From Visionaries to Operators to Caretakers"

In a December 13, 2008 NY Times op-ed piece, Tom Friedman says, "The auto consultant John Casesa once noted that Detroit’s management has gone from visionaries to operators to caretakers."

Hmm, visionaries to operators to caretakers. Visionaries see what is not and create it. Operators manage what is for optimum performance. Caretakers take care of that which is in decline, possibly ready to expire. That cycle is not limited to the current auto industry. What is sometimes referred to as the Organizational Life Cycle is very prevalent. And while no one sets out to be a caretaker, that is exactly what many end up doing.

So, what separates a visionary from an operator and a caretaker. Is it a matter of "risk-taking?" Is it an unusual capacity to see things that are not as though they are? Luck? Divine favor? All of the above?

I'll leave parsing that out to wiser parsers. What I will say is that conformity is what will insulate you into being carried along in the Organizational Life Cycle. Maybe wanting to insistently and consistantly ask, "Why is it better if we keep on doing it that way?" is a step towards keeping you leaning towards innovation and envisioning.

Yesterday's logic or today's "playing around?"

Peter Drucker said, "The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday's logic."

We are creatures of habit and our tendency is reach for the known as we face turbulence. Yet history shows us that doing the same old thing "one more time" can lead to catastrophic failure.
As our world seems headed into continual turbulence or, as Peter Vaill first termed it, "permanent whitewater," what does leadership look like and what does leadership do?

The Center for Creative Leadership had a blog post last June entitled, "Leadership in permanent whitewater: Playing with the metaphor." It suggests some interesting lessons for leaders from whitewater canoeing such as:

• Chaos in organizations is not random. Organizational turbulence is full of patterns. There are almost unimaginable layers of order enfolded within chaos. The nature of the order can be quite surprising, and is sometimes invisible to conventional wisdom. Turbulence can be an enormous aid, rather than an impediment, to prediction and control. Find new ways to learn the patterns--to "read the river." The development of this kind of perception is a core competency, not a frill.
  
• Play is essential within organizations if people are to develop an eye for patterns within chaos. Play is essential for action and innovation within chaos. Being consistently rule-bound is crippling. Serious play is a vital supplement to traditional learning. Organizational play requires safe places in which to break rules, make mistakes, and recover--and then try it again, and again. Find the higher-order rules which govern breaking rules with relative safety.
  
• Fundamental innovation can come from serious play at the fringes of organizations. Groups of mavericks busy violating common sense aren't all that bad. Making sense of chaos is ultimately a community venture including both the center and the fringe. Make room in the community for both the center and the fringes (and make sure any "skunkworks" are not in exile from the community).

Hmm, what do you think?

How to do a successful start-up

You can sometimes find life wisdom in unusual places. CNET has a summary of Scott McNealy's main points from a talk he gave at the recent Plug and Play Expo in Sunnyvale, CA that's focused on how to do a successful start-up. Who's Scott McNealy? He and some dudes started up Sun Microsystems. If that's not enough help, Google it.

Try these on life/start-up wisdom rules:

1. Have a controversial strategy
2. Break the rules of business, but don't lie cheat or steal to do it. [NOTE: he could have just said, "Innovate - don't repaint and call it innovation!"].
3. Get a little money, but not too much.
4. Have a cause.
5. Just do it, but marry well. [Scott delayed marrying till 39].

Is God calling you to a start-up of some kind? If so, what do you think about Scott's start-up rules?

And if you want some good PR help for your start-up, chk here.

LifeChurch and online community tools

There's an article at ReadWriteWeb, one of top web watchers, on how LifeChurch in Edmund, OK (but with 12 video-venue sites in different states) is leveraging the web thru online tools.

LifeChurch is attempting to get their church engaging online together using a variety of web tools such as Internet campus evites, Tweets (using Twitter) and a live video stream thru Mogulus. Additionally, they are partnering with RaggamuffinSoul.com.

When you check this all out, you'll see it represents a rich environment to both build community and grow out beyond the community.

What does this look like when it's global ?

"Abstractly Evocative"

What is more compelling and persuasive? Something that is concrete and clear like the typical "head shot" photo or something that demands that you tease out its meaning?

I heard an artist say that his organization strives to be "abstractly evocative." And I can't get that phrase out of my head. So, I Googled a web search and suprisingly, only 53 hits came up. Most had to do with art directly or something in literature that appealed to something that was sensual. When did the same on images, only 3 hits came up. One that I found particularly interesting is "Anchored in Perath," a musical score based on the Apocalypse: http://www.buckthornstudios.com/shop1.html.

Part of my questions then roam to whether God is at times "abstractly evocative" in his communication with me/us. Are the Gospels a "head shot" of Jesus or are they "abstractly evocative?" [cf. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word..."]

Finally, am I/are we "abstractly evocative" enough or often enough in my/our communication?
Do I draw people into meaning or am I so concerned with clarity that it's impossible that it would interest them.

6.6 degrees of separation in a Flat World?

Well, it had to happen!

Microsoft did a study of 30 Billion (yes, "B"as in "Billion") electronic conversations involving 180 million people worldwide during an entire month and then ran the numbers. The result is a a corroboration of the "Six Degrees of Separation" theory that says that everyone is connected to everyone else on the planet by no more than 6 connecting points.

Well, sort of. The actual number that Microsoft came up with was 6.6 degrees of separation. And that makes for a pretty flat world considering we are 6.7 billion people and counting. Is your organization as flat as the world is?

If that's true, what does it say about how necessary I am for anybody to connect to anybody else? What makes them choose me over any other available connection point? How much time should I spend on developing my networking skills?

Check out the links: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10005553-16.html; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103718.html

Eric Hofer, the self taught social philosopher said, "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."

Are you a learner or learned?