Dave Ulrich – Global Peter Drucker Forum BLOG https://www.druckerforum.org/blog Mon, 28 Jan 2019 08:30:30 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9 What Do Thought Leaders Think? by Dave Ulrich https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=2107 https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=2107#respond Mon, 24 Dec 2018 08:30:31 +0000 https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=2107

How do thought leaders think about management, innovation, corporations, turbulent times, discontinuity, effective executives, and managing for the future? (Note: All these terms are from titles of Peter Drucker’s magnificent books). In this essay, italicized text indicates book titles or quotes from Peter Drucker.

I recently had the privilege of attending and participating in the 10th Annual Peter Drucker Forum. Conceived and delivered by Richard Straub (and his outstanding team), this remarkable event brought together sixty thought leaders in management from academia, industry, journalism, and consulting. Collectively, these leaders have published thousands of books about talent, organization, and leadership. In short eight- to twelve-minute bursts, they shared their insights on a how to reinvent, reimagine, and recreate the overall study of management that Peter Drucker founded.

Let me distill four insights from these thought leaders.

Change, in whatever form, is not new, but critical.

Whatever the latest incantation or term (agility, turbulence, reinvention, activism, transformation, learning, discovery, design thinking, disruption), recognizing and adapting to change creates success. Drucker (and others) talked about discontinuity (1969), turbulent times (1980), next economics (1981), a time of great change (1995), so change is not a new challenge. Even the term VUCA (1987) is not a new concept.

To respond to inevitable change, we need to look forward to opportunity more than lament the discomfort of the present; learn from both failure and success and see failure as an opportunity to learn; and recognize and let go of unconscious biases that hinder change. We now accept the fact that learning is a lifelong process of keeping abreast of change. And the most pressing task is to teach people how to learn.

In today’s world, digital technology allows unheard of transparency, access, and sharing of information that drives change (15 to 20 percent of jobs will be done away with, and 65 percent of jobs will change with technology). This information ubiquity empowers (even requires) people to take accountability to be liberated in their own career, and it pivots organizational reinvention from hierarchies to platforms where everyone has access to information to make decisions.

Ideas matter.

In the sixty presentations (and hundreds of sidebar conversations), ideas matter. Each presenter brought unique insights and enormous passion for their ideas; some of the ideas were theoretical (role of business and government) and some pragmatic (experiences of leading CEOs); some research based (findings on innovation practices) and some conceptual (emerging organizational form); some narrower (ask good questions) and some broader (role of business in society); some skeptical (excesses of capitalism) and some optimistic (reinventing liberated organizations); and some looking back (lamenting hierarchy) and some looking forward (forthcoming digital transformations). Thought leaders are not short on thinking!

As I pondered this incredible smorgasbord of ideas, I was struck how leaders in all types of organizations and at all levels must learn to navigate the inevitable paradoxes of our times. Paradox in business means that there are fewer “from/to” work transitions and more “and/also” pivots. Some of the emerging leadership paradoxes of our day include:

• Working alone and working together. Deep personal expertise fosters innovation, and collaboration enables application. Leaders fight the war for talent, but they create victory through organizations.

• Creating purpose and making profit. People work (as if they are volunteers) for meaning and purpose, but without winning in the marketplace (making profit), there is no work. Leaders become both meaning makers and market creators. Businesses exist to produce results on the outside, in the market and in the economy.

• Managing hard data with analytics and soft data with stories. Decisions improve with analytics, but insights into the future often follow outlier stories. Leaders need to manage the head (analytics) and the heart (stories).

• Freedom through empowerment and accountability through the right culture. Leaders liberate their people to fulfill their potential, and they ensure accountability to customer value creation by having the right culture.

As leaders navigate between these (and other) paradox guardrails, they enable tension without contention, disagree without being disagreeable, and create a future without disrespecting the past. Leadership is defined by results not attributes.

IMPACT (in cap’s to highlight it) matters even more.

With innumerable ideas being shared, an inevitable challenge is to turn these ideas into IMPACT. The impact of these ideas may be on multiple stakeholders.

• An employee becomes an agent for himself or herself when he or she takes personal accountability for professional and personal choices.

• An individual leader better articulates purpose, empowers others, monitors time, and models values.

• An organization creates the right culture and installs the right governance mechanisms to inspire and connect employees, customers, and investors into a shared network or ecosystem.

• A government defines a political philosophy and generates regulatory statutes that move a country and citizenship forward.

• A movement redefines organizations as settings where people believe, become, and belong so that customers and investors win.

Creating this IMPACT comes from broad visions and simple actions. And, as noted in the Forum, progress is being made. Many of the leading organizations of our day (Alibaba, Amazon, Google, Haier, Huawei, Vinci, Unilever) are reinventing organizational principles that inspire people and create the right culture.

The future holds good news and warning signals.

Thought leaders frame ideas; diligent managers deliver results. Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.

From this conference, I am encouraged with the good news of fresh and insightful thinking that challenges orthodoxies, encourages innovation in organizational logic and individual agency, and creates a more boundary-less future.

Knowledge has to be improved, challenged, and increased constantly, or it vanishes.

The only thing we know about the future is that it will be different.

At the same time, I am concerned about rhetoric not matching reality when thought leaders individually call for collaboration. In many ways, being a thought leader singing a solo is easier than a choir director bringing together many voices into one agenda. Thought leaders might better model thought leadership (plural, collaborative) by building on others’ ideas and working together through the difficult process of disagreements to find novel solutions.

In addition, I worry about an inside-out focus of many of the talks. Value is not defined by the giver or activity but the receiver or outcomes of the activity. The ultimate value of upgrading individual talent and establishing the right organization cultures comes from customers, investors, and communities. There was more attention given to what is done rather than the outcomes of what is done. There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create [and keep] a customer. The customer is a foundation of a business and keeps it in existence. The customer alone gives employment.

Even with these nagging caveats, now is a remarkable time for managerial and organizational innovation. As thought leaders transfer their thoughts into others’ actions, we enable individuals and organizations to fulfill their purpose and enrich the world we live in. I have great hope in this future. The best way to predict the future is to create it.

About the Author:

Ranked as the #1 management guru by Business Week, profiled by Fast Company as one of the world’s top 10 creative people in business, a top 5 coach in Forbes, and recognized on Thinkers50 as one of the world’s leading business thinkers, Dave Ulrich has a passion for ideas with impact. In his writing, teaching, and consulting, he continually seeks new ideas that tackle some of the world’s thorniest and longest standing challenges.

This article is one in a series related to the 10th Global Peter Drucker Forum, with the theme management. the human dimension, that has taken place on November 29 & 30, 2018 in Vienna, Austria #GPDF18

This article first appeared in Linkedin Pulse

 

]]>
https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?feed=rss2&p=2107 0
Shifting from Whom to Believe to How to Believe by Dave Ulrich https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=2002 https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=2002#respond Thu, 01 Nov 2018 11:24:03 +0000 https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=2002

Sometimes deciding whom to believe even when two sides offer differing views of the same event is relatively easy. When a situation involves clear and concrete corroborative evidence, a pattern of behaviors, or compelling witnesses, whom to believe is relatively simple.

But frequently, two sides offer differing views about the same event, each with valid reasons for their perspectives. A leader’s intended comments may not represent what followers hear. A customer may experience a product or service in a way the company didn’t intend. A person accused of mistreating another may deny or not acknowledge the charges of the person claiming mistreatment. Two parties to an event may have vastly different memories, understandings, or interpretations of the situation.

Even as we recognize global diversity, the people we typically associate with are becoming more homogeneous. In 1992 in the United States, 38 percent of voters lived in a landslide county (a total of 1,192 out of 3,113 counties), being defined as one in which any vote was won by 20 percentage points or more. However, by 2016, the number increased to over 60 percent. Because people surround themselves with others like them (as neighbors, media watchers, social economic status, etc.) and only encounter a one-sided perspective, they experience less trouble deciding whom to believe. We think we easily know whom to believe when we bury ourselves within our ideological group and avoid others with divergent beliefs. This belief isolation reinforces one’s perspective and makes deciding whom to believe easier; but it makes figuring out how to believe much more difficult. Whom to believe is the pursuit of truth; how to believe is the pursuit of understanding. Both are important, but sometimes how to believe matters more than whom when truth is not clear.   

Learning how to believe means having an open mind: having a point of view while simultaneously considering and valuing others’ beliefs. Without learning how to differ in belief, political and social divisiveness often ends with differing groups yelling past and discounting each other. C.S. Lewis’s vision of hell in The Great Divorce describes that individuals who disagree move further apart and build bigger walls to isolate themselves from others and their disagreements. Before long, hell is an empty donut hole because people live with those who believe, look, talk, and act like themselves. In today’s transparent and social media age, these opposing belief groups are not merely isolated, but they slingshot their disagreements to the world and exacerbate conflicts by trying to be the loudest or most clever in defending themselves.

So in our day, the more difficult challenge is not necessarily deciding whose side of the story to believe when there are two legitimate positions, but how to respond to those who believe differently in a way that not only tolerates, but relishes differences.

How can we learn to understand others who may not believe as we do?

Recognize my personal bias.

We each carry conscious and unconscious biases that shape who and how we believe. I grew up in a Christian home with parents dedicated to service, faith, and family. As I explored the world, I realized that many shared these views, and surrounding myself with and believing those of similar heritage was easy and came naturally. But to understand others with different backgrounds, I needed to recognize and accept my heritage bias and learn to appreciate others’ heritage by exploring their life experiences. My experiences shape my beliefs; and others’ experiences shape their beliefs and helped me have empathy for their views. Leaders who listen to their employees as much as talking to them learn to communicate in ways that matter to employees. One wealthy leader with a number of children thought he understood the next generation because he had children, but when he recognized that his children grew up in luxury (private schools, access to resources), he realized the incompleteness of his biased understanding of most of the next generation who did not have similar resources. Employees who act as customers sometimes learn the real value of products and services. Or more generally: those who empathize with others’ (distressing) experiences can more appreciate the place those individuals are coming from.

Find common ground.

Appreciating divergence of beliefs often begins with convergence. Convergence focuses on what problems we want to solve, who we want to serve, and what outcomes we hope to attain. Leaders and employees share a desire for a company to succeed; companies and customers want products or services that work; everyone want themselves and others to be treated with respect. When we agree on the ends, we may diverge on the means to get there. My favorite “big word” is equifinality, or the systems-theory principle that there may be many means to reach an end. We can explore and experiment with different paths to a shared goal. For example, in a company we may say, “We both want the company to succeed; we respectfully disagree on how to get there. Let’s see if we can find a way we both can work with.”

Focus on ideas, not people.

Ideas can be changed and accepted easier than personalities. By focusing on ideas, we can disagree without being disagreeable; have tension without contention. When differences descend to personal attacks, they become intransigent; with ideas, we can more easily say, “We disagree; can we move on?” Personal respect encourages civility in debates on ideas. At times, when disagreements come from deeply held values, we might resort to “Agree when we can agree and tolerate disagreements.”

Spend time together.

A new head of HR who succeeded six CHROs in seven years was worried about being the seventh in this pattern. She started her tenure by doing a listening tour: going to senior business executives and senior HR staff offices and listening to their business and personal issues. She did not offer immediate advice but wanted to learn what they expected of her. Her first offsite with her HR team was casual and away from the office where her team shared frustrations with the past and expressed opportunities for the future. While not always easy, spending time together creates a more personal bond. Four years into her tenure, she recognized she had broken a pattern. The more positive time we spend with others who may not believe like us, the more we come to appreciate their point of view.

Find forums that model respectful disagreement.

In the United States, where political divisiveness is rampant, there are cases of civility. Vice presidential candidates Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman held a Vice Presidential debate where differences were shared with respect. The late Senator Edward Kennedy (liberal) and Senator Orrin Hatch (conservative) had serious disagreements on policy, but the two were able to debate their differences amicably. Civility and courtesy can replace rudeness and acrimony, and leaders should seek public forums where disagreement is modeled in positive ways.

Ultimately whom we believe and what we believe are personal choices. But I can also choose how to believe. I can choose to ensconce myself in my biases and community, seeing only my side of an issue; or I can open myself to others with tolerance through recognizing my biases, finding common ground, focusing on ideas, spending time together, and see how others model disagreement positively.

How do you come to believe?

About the Author:

Ranked as the #1 management guru by Business Week, profiled by Fast Company as one of the world’s top 10 creative people in business, a top 5 coach in Forbes, and recognized on Thinkers50 as one of the world’s leading business thinkers, Dave Ulrich has a passion for ideas with impact. In his writing, teaching, and consulting, he continually seeks new ideas that tackle some of the world’s thorniest and longest standing challenges.

This article is one in a series related to the 10th Global Peter Drucker Forum, with the theme management. the human dimension, taking place on November 29 & 30, 2018 in Vienna, Austria #GPDF18

This article was first published in LinkedIn Pulse

]]>
https://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?feed=rss2&p=2002 0