Fairytale about the Routine and the Ritual
There is a constant war between routine and ritual. The war is being fought among us and the stakes are high. The total domination of routine would mean the death of the ritual, and vice versa.
This war has a long history; it’s a history of decline. The story starts with peace. Peace means absolute dominion of the superior party, in our case the Ritual. When Ritual reigned, Routine existed in the stage of pure potential only. Every act was performed with complete awareness in the right “context” with the appropriate style elements that were in complete harmony with the purpose of the act. By the performance of the act time was completely eliminated and the the concept was lifted from potentiality to actuality in a high intensity creative tension. The actors, while performing the ritual were immortal and the acts were acts of immortality.
The weakening of awareness created ideal conditions for Routine to emerge and gradually gain foothold in increasingly more areas of life. The more it gained, the stronger it got, since Routine is supported by numbers.
Today the situation is somber. Routine has become so pervasive that it almost completely liquidated the Ritual. People’s awareness is almost in a constant state of sleep, things just “happen” to them, they are insatiable, constantly unsatisfied and frustrated and when Routine offers them the chance for peace, they gladly succumb to it. This is however not real peace since it means the liquidation of superiority, the very foundation of what makes people what they are: quality, creativity, courage, curiosity, intelligence.
This false peace, which is the temporary victory of routine, is what turned
- values into the targets of mockery
- royalty into merchants
- warriors into street fighters in a cage
- artists into regressive-infantile idiots
- clowns into celebrities
while everybody can do anything on a whim, everything is for sale and the style elements of inferiority are celebrated “qualities”.
The good news is that Routine can’t win completely, since it doesn’t exist by itself; its existence is dependent on weakness. It’s theoretical win would contain a self – contradiction, which renders it an absurdity.
It is time to re-instate rituals in all areas of life, to re-occupy lost territories, to pick up the weapons and say no to the wrong kind of peace, to become sharp and alert, to prepare, to separate, to distinguish so we can unite, to differentiate between quality and pseudo-quality, to re-define the value system, to rise and transcend this state, to be uncompromising: to fight the war instead of passively enduring it!
The method
3 facts about methodologies:
- Methodologies in a given area or based on given views are almost the same, so they don’t provide true differentiation
- Methodologies are of course important, but they are not that important. There is a point where the methodology becomes a liability, so to speak: unless you leave it behind, it will hold you back.
- There are people who rebel against methodologies because they’re incapable of following them; there are people who become the methodology; there are people who are above the methodology in the sense that they are capable of determining not only when to move on, but also of showing the path.
Because I said so
“Because I said so” is a stage.
If it is the end stage, it often comes from somebody who’s explored all available options and now he/she has to move on. The time of discussions is over, a decision is made; what we do may not be perfect, but we’re not aware of better scenarios; it’s time to focus and execute.
If it is the first stage, it often means fear dominates; and when fear dominates, the person contracts. In this stage it is impossible to expand, to let go of assumptions, to open up, to connect, to listen, to evaluate, to think.
Being aware of fear, turning attention to it, maybe the only way to trigger thinking and get out of it. Focusing on the problems at hand is an excuse to stay dominated by fear. “Because I said so” in such a case will cement the situation to such a degree that it will require an external force to break it up.
Anything is possible
“Anything’s possible” is the motivational mantra of the post industrial age; it is a little vague. It’s obvious to everybody that in systems, including of course such never very well defined systems as social systems, the range of potentialities is limited.
“Anything’s possible” is a logical impossibility and yet it has obtained/was given sentimental value and it drives people all over the place; literally. People set out to “achieve”. Ironically what they want to achieve is highly predictable. A strangely understood quantitative freedom is typically the context in which achievements are evaluated (it’s mostly about financial freedom).
Much more important than this should be to increase awareness to the range of potentialities available to individuals, developing the power to actualize these potentials and create conditions that enable such efforts; this however is outside the range of potentialities for most.
Do not interview!
Interviews are not fair. No matter what the context, be it job interviews, management audits, corporate restructuring, pitching for a project, analysis as part of a management consulting initiative, vendor selection, whatever; they are not fair.
Right off the bat interviews create an inquisitive situation, which is absolutely not warranted. Even the most capable managers, specialists sometimes even leaders become less effective in an interview setting; perhaps because everybody knows, even if only intuitively, that they are in an incorrect, unjust situation. Once you are in the situation where you shouldn’t be, you already lost. Even if the outcome will be perceived as “positive” (like you get the job, you don’t get fired, you contribute to the uncovering of the root cause of a problem, etc. etc.), the experience leaves a bitter aftertaste in the mouth of those, who are not built to give up, to accept injustice, to rationalize by adjusting to the majority, to comply by all means, etc.
Interviews polarize between good interviewers and poor interviewers, not between good contributors and poor contributors. Very often a good interviewer is a poor contributor and vice versa.
Have conversations! Even if you find yourself sitting across from a bureaucrat who just wants to get through a checklist as fast as possible, still make an effort to have a conversation. If you are more experienced, guide the conversation towards the ideal outcome for everybody.
- Prepare: know what you want out of the conversation. What do you want to find out, points you want to make, etc. Hopefully “to impress” will not be on your list.
- Set the stage: it’s possible that your conversation partners just arrived from a series of meetings, grabbed a coffee 5 minutes before your meeting, had no time even to discuss what they want out of this conversation. If they don’t do it, set the stage yourself.
- Keep an open mind: the conversation may not go the way you planned, some of the points you planned to make may not make sense anymore, etc. Be open and adjust.
- Make it a pleasant experience. Have fun with it! Relax (remember, it’s a conversation, not an interview): smile, think, take your time, make observations, comment, etc.
- Do NOT give standard answers! Why bother? If you interview for a job for example handle the typical what-are-your-strengths-and-weaknesses type of non-sense with humor and lots of examples.
- If they want to put you in a situation that is not worthy of you, (“group interviews” come to mind as an example), politely refuse and share your reasons with them.
On the other side of the fence, when you’re t the one leading the interview, always think about this: what kind of experience do I create with this conversation? Is it going to inspire, is it going to unleash creative energies, is it going to create an atmosphere of trust, is it going to make the other person want to help me, to open up to me, to share his thoughts with me? Is she going to leave after the conversation with full of energy, is she going to think back to this experience with positive thoughts, is he going to rave about this conversation to his friends? Is she going to leave with a new perspective, with exciting thoughts and ideas?
I think I made the point.
Change
Essentially there are only two types of changes, representing two opposing ends of a large spectrum:
Inert change, the direction of which is downwards and controlled change, the direction of which is upwards.
Ironically, as they fall, organizations rationalize their lack of control with what they call change management.
There is no compromise, consensus or management in architecting and leading upward change.
“Tools” for architecting change are
- The concept, which serves as a platform of integration for strategy and leadership must be articulated. Such concept must be based on principles (not in the conventional sense).
- Strategy and organizational design
- Essential (vertical) leadership
Upward change essentially goes against the current (fights convictions), since the environment is falling. The challenges are tremendous and in this context terms like courage, integrity and loyalty regain their original, undistorted meaning.
Upward change is transformative especially when initiated in modern business organizations.
Upward change accomplishes what people experiencing inert change are only dreaming about: synthetic integration between actors of the given system and those of the environment (be it customers, stakeholders, whatever).
Leadership lessons for executive search guys
I am going to use this space now to air some of my frustrations; frustrations from the murky mix of bureaucratic, opportunistic, often downright coward, unintelligent and arrogant style elements some players exhibit in their business dealings in the executive search business.
I don’t like people who give uninvited “lessons” to others; especially in questions of leadership, but I think the problems I am touching on justify that I put myself in such a situation. I think these are not so much lessons as demands.
1. Don’t be opportunistic. Everybody else maybe, but you should not be opportunistic. You are in the relationship business, consequently you must not be opportunistic. There is nothing more repulsive when somebody treats people opportunistically.
2. Exercise courtesy to everybody. I hate to write it down because it should be obvious, but I must:
- As an absolute minimum say thank you to people who do you a favor; this is easy to do when it comes to bigger things, like you get an introduction, but you must do it in small, everyday things, too. There is no such thing as a small favor.
- Say thank you to everybody who takes the time to talk to you, even if you don’t gain anything from it immediately.
- If you do somebody a favor, do it with class. Don’t forget: favors are part of what builds relationships. This means you should be generous with your favors while you should treat each and every favor done for you, no matter how small it maybe, as the biggest gift you can get
2. Always keep your promise, especially in small things. Always. You don’t have the luxury of forgetting small promises. Never; not one; it simply should not happen and when it does, and you realize that your deadline is one hour over, you should be drenched in sweat not because you feel guilty, but because it scares the hell out of you that you are so weak.
3. Treat people with class. There is no other way; not nicely, not politely, not in any other way: with class. Everybody. It’s your responsibility to create the right experience for all your interactions inside and outside the firm. In this business there is only one type of experience: the essential type. When you talk to somebody your conversation inevitably leads to “moments of truth”. You can’t sleep while it’s being built up and you definitely can’t sleep when it arrives, and in this business such moments may come several times a day. Class is the right style element for moments of truth. Class in words, class in gestures, class in circumstances. Always be aware!
4. Despise the conditions of guilt and fear. You are in the leadership business, which means that your actions should be guided by principles that you “internalized” intellectually to such a degree that they guide your behavior. They give you poise, balance and help you make your decisions without hesitation. Guilt and fear are the results of false views or lack of integrity and people with such views will inevitably act as conditions dictate: inconsistently and ultimately corruptly. The other spectrum of people without guilt and fear are psychopaths and they of course have a much easier “job”.
5. Don’t tolerate servitude around you. In this business it is principles that dictate. Your role is to be the living representation of principles and corresponding values and thus you must be the main force of integration; the “factor” to which conditions must be aligned from the side of your client, colleagues and potential candidates; the force that draws the right people to you. You do not serve anybody, you do not align to anybody; instead you help to align everything to principles. It is unimaginable to make compromises on this.
6. Communicate perfectly. This also has a lot to do with class. Communication in this business is a ritual. Differentiate between a conversation, a dialogue, a small or easy talk, a monologue (like presentations) and give each the absolute perfect style elements; needless to say always with class. You can’t write emails like everybody else, your phone calls can’t be like “normal” phone calls, your letters also must be differentiated. You perform a ritual in all your communications, without exception.
7. Go against the flow. Fight wrong perceptions uncompromisingly. The search business is NOT about search, it is NOT a specialized function; it is about integration: integrating concept with strategy, strategy with leadership, leadership with management. This starts on a conceptual level and so should your engagement. If you are not aligned on a conceptual level, way before the strategic level, you will simply perform research and a bunch of interviews and you will ultimately fail; you will fail even if you bring in the “right” guy, who fits the profile, even if he/she stays on for 6 months or 12 months; you’ll fail because unless the concept was perfect and it was perfectly aligned to strategy and strategy was perfectly aligned with the leadership team, etc. you just contributed to the mess and didn’t fulfill your function of integration. If you come to the conclusion that you have to change the whole game, go ahead and do it. When you act with integrity, you really have no other choice.
8. You are outside the system and this is a good thing. Integration is only possible from outside the given system(s). This is why the CEO is not in a perfect position to fulfill this function. Be aware of this advantageous position but don’t confuse it with irresponsibility. You must walk the thin line of being outside and being engaged in the same time. The responsibility doesn’t end with the placement and the guarantee period. The responsibility of the integrator expands to the lifetime of the system (company and people in it).
9. Resist the temptation of reading and repeating. As an integrator you should write to explore. Your topics will most likely be outside the business domain. People who read and repeat are typically specialists; in a consulting role they are better suited for McKinsey or other strategy or management consulting players.
10. This sounds too elitist? It is ok: leadership is fundamentally elitist. This business should be one the most elite businesses with the smallest number of players. This industry has reached a state where it needs to be set on fire so it can be cleansed and reborn.
Who comes through whom…to you?
Mostly we meet new people through people we know. The following is a summary of my observations over the years.
Everyone you know symbolizes something very specific to you. Even though this is of course a complex question of patterns of behavior that built up your perception (after years of observation of 5 minutes of conversation) very often you can summarize this in one word, like courage, opportunistic, strength, compromise, no compromise, class, cowardice, style, weak, arrogance, caring, ignorance, humiliation, etc, etc, etc.
Watch what happens when you are aware of this. Some personal experiences:
One of my business contacts is highly opportunistic; to such a degree that it borders arrogance.
Patterns: Arrogance
- no vision
- always takes, never gives: this sets the limits of his deals and relationships
- always brings numbers but never produces exceptional results.
Who / what comes through him:
- For our first meeting he a picked restaurant where he knows the owner: I got ripped off
- I introduced him to one of my contacts: he was arrogant.
- He brought me somebody with a business deal: I caught him lying
Another one of my contacts symbolizes bad compromise.
Pattern: Lack of awareness
- always with a “legit reason”, but she consistently puts herself in situations where she’s under appreciated, sometimes even humiliated;
- she is terrible at areas she thinks she’s good at
- she doesn’t know her place; false idea about what she should be doing
Who come through her (patterns):
- introductions to arrogant people on the one hand, or to people with no self confidence or people in crisis situations on the other hand. Arrogance and lack of confidence are both the results of lack of awareness.
Another one:
This person represents entrepreneurship.
Patterns (open, aware):
- successful career in leadership roles in highly competitive markets
- his network consists of good friends; he readily shares his network with others who represent similar views
Who came through him:
- highly talented, intelligent people
- people with class and laser sharp vision about how and on what level they want to help others
Similar observations can be made with organizational identities as well (vendors, suppliers, clients, partners, etc.)
Awareness of patterns and of course your own patterns help you decide whom to introduce to whom in what context and of course what to give attention to at new introductions. This doesn’t mean that we develop prejudice towards new people! We must also be aware of the role of anomalies and always keep an open mind…
Taken it one step further, your situational awareness would increase, you’ll perceive situations organically; this means that you will evaluate a conversation for example not as a snapshot of an hour of dialogue but as part of a pattern that incorporates the environment, words and body language, the events and people leading up to it and your clues about possible outcomes.
Specialization as religion
Specialization has become a globalized religion. Specialization is a prerequisite not only for survival but for existence! The perception that called it forth, shot it to ontological levels.
We live in a world of specialists with very particular style elements. This world is – by itself- an illusion. A higher vantage point must be actively represented by a different breed so that integration may become possible. Without integration there is only decline and disintegration; disintegration that is prevalent today but obvious only to a few: to the elite.
Specialization without context is simply not credible; it is of course more than credible among those specialists who can’t perceive the context: for them it is the only perceived reality.
There is a reality higher than the horizontal field of specialized areas. In lack of a perceived context the number of the fields of specialization is increasing and the areas of specialization are becoming ever smaller.
Specialists suffer in a constant identity crisis since their identity is almost purely quantitative. If they don’t align to principles of integration, their existence is absurd, since it is based on a contradiction: the more focused their specialization is the more incompetent they are in the embedding system/environment; what/who is the best is defined by pure quantity.
Once we transcend the horizontal plane of specialization,
- leadership consultants are not credible in questions of principles,
- brain surgeons are not credible when it comes to healing,
- people devising new abstractions in physics are not credible in questions of space, time and matter,
- branding technicians are not credible in questions of identity,
- bankers are not credible in economics,
- politicians have no credibility and sensibility to hierarchy and the state (probably since Metternich and Windischgraetz),
- economists are not credible in questions of wealth,
- artists lost their way to directly experience higher realities and turned their attention the opposite way, exhibiting dead animals in formaldehyde,
- philosophers are not credible regarding the Truth,
- psychologists are not credible in questions of consciousness and the root cause of behavior
- business can’t comprehend leadership and
- academia lost its credibility in the question of elitism
- so on and so forth.
The problem is not with specialization of course. The problem is with the lack of willingness to align vertically to the principles providing the foundation for integration. When – driven by arrogance on the one hand and ignorance on the other - representatives of a small area start to think of their particular areas in absolute terms, we know we have a grave problem.
When we recognize that we have reached a stage whereby the fundamentals of the whole system must be challenged and the foundations are accepted by the overwhelming majority as facts that nobody may challenge, we have to make principle based choices; such choices demand leadership.
Titles in photography
Similarly to poetry, in photography the title is just as important as the picture itself: it is an integral part of the “concept”.
As it would be bizarre if a poem was called “sonnet with 14 lines and iambik pentameter”, it is incredible that photos are given titles like sunset at sea, trees after storm, etc. : practically describing the obvious.
Giving the right title maybe approached in two ways:
The first one is exactly like with poems: the picture is analogous with the poem and the picture’s title captures and expresses the concept.
The second is the opposite:
The picture itself becomes the title, and the concept is elaborated in detail in a written form.
Can’t help but noticing the business applications.