OLYMPUS CEO SEES THE POWER OF CONVERSATION

“You want people to know one another,” says F. Mark Gumz, CEO of the Olympus Corporation and the Feb. 13 Corner Office feature in the Sunday New York Times business section. “If you pull people together and share how they do things, they work better.”

It is encouraging to read about leaders who understand the power of conversation, collaboration and knocking down organizational silos, so we wanted to both applaud and share his story.

Gumz rejoined Olympus after a long period away as an independent consultant. When the company approached him about the job, he was worried about readjusting to a corporate environment. But when he decided to make the leap, he was clear about the kind of organizational culture he wanted to create. One of his key strategies was tohelp people understand that a successful bottom line depends on seeing and effectively navigating the inherent organization’s interdependencies. He used their wallets to make his point.

“I made part of their compensation based on the company’s overall performance,” Gumz says. “And I focused on getting people to share processes from different parts of the organization.”

He also instituted a rule prohibiting people from eating at their desk, both because he understands that taking a break from work is re-energizing, and also because he knows that conversations in the lunchroom are a great way to learn more about your coworkers, what they do, and what they are working on.

Gumz clearly has a management strategy that emphasizes personal accountability for the success of the whole, something that keeps the focus on business results instead of self-interest. Because this is a strategy that is at the heart of our own work, we’re always grateful to see a high-profile leader living out those values.

 

Written by Maren and Jamie Showkeir

Owners of henning-showkeir & associates, inc., and co-authors of Authentic Conversations: Moving from Manipulation to Truth and Commitment.

EFFECTIVE LEADERS NEED EFFECTIVE FOLLOWERS

We have long been fans of the work of the Institute for Global Ethics and its founder, Rush Kidder. He has authored several books, teaches seminars on ethics and has done important research on the common ethical values that exist in almost every society and culture. As subscribers to his newsletter, we enjoy his weekly, topical commentaries and find they often have relevance to our work.

His January 31 commentary talks about talks about followership, an oft-overlooked corollary of leadership. People such as politicians, corporate CEOs, academics, and religious figures may be seen as “leaders” but they won’t be effective unless they attract followers who respect them enough to engage a vision. As Rush points out, the $50 billion leadership industry is thriving, but how is the return on that investment manifesting? Judging from people’s cynicism about many of the world’s foremost leaders (and for that matter, the leaders we work with every day), the dividends aren’t always visible.
One of Rush’s questions in particular got our attention: “Have we so undernourished our sense of followership that [people] equate “we-ness” with weakness?” We have a related question: Are the skills for effective collaboration required to create a preferred shared future being lost in the obsession to look out for No. 1? Kidder argues that ethical leadership must take good followership into account because “if we teach leaders to respect followership only so that they can become even better at controlling others, we’ve missed the point. Followership isn’t a means to somebody else’s end. It’s the essence of community-building.”

This is a concept that is baked into our notion of authentic conversations, which calls for setting aside self-interest in favor of working toward the success of the whole. It means shifting the perspective of “if you win, I lose” (and vice versa) to an understanding that cooperation and collaboration help us maximize the success and well-being of all.

The notion of effective leadership shifts from getting others to do things your way to encouraging people to coalesce around a greater, defined purpose. It means that people share values and a vision for a preferred future and work together to develop the roadmap and necessary tools for getting there. In that sense, we are all leaders and followers.

Authenticity demands forgoing to the manipulation of others to serve our selfish interests and instead engaging each other transparently and with goodwill. As our friend Ira Chaleff writes in his wonderful book The Courageous Follower, followers don’t orbit around a leader — leaders and followers both orbit around purpose.

 

Written by Maren and Jamie Showkeir

Owners of henning-showkeir & associates, inc., and co-authors of Authentic Conversations: Moving from Manipulation to Truth and Commitment.

LEAN INTO VULNERABILITY TO ACHIEVE AUTHENTICITY

Brené Brown is a self-described “researcher storyteller,” with a PhD in social work. She has spent the last decade studying and doing research on vulnerability, courage and authenticity.

“Connection is why we are here,” she said in a recent TED speech, which was recommended to us by a friend and fellow traveler on the road to authenticity. “[Connection] is what gives purpose and meaning to our lives.” And connection requires authenticity, Brown’s research shows.

Here’s why: One of the main qualities that separate those who have a strong sense of love and belonging from those who don’t is a willingness to be truly seen. These are people who can let go of who they think they should be and be real about who they are. They have learned to embrace vulnerability, which Brown says is absolutely essential for connection.

Embracing vulnerability is also essential to having authentic conversations. Enduring relationships characterized by trust, respect, acceptance, and compassion begin with willingness to be vulnerable. To achieve true connection, you have to live without guarantees. You must invest in relationships that might not work out.

Brown also connects her research to the vitriolic nature of our public conversations, particularly in politics and the media, because the fear that gives birth to vulnerability tends to get cloaked in desperate uncertainty.

Our need to wall off fear and vulnerability inspires us to transform uncertainty into certainty, whether it’s about religion, politics or personal philosophies. Blaming others becomes the easiest way to discharge discomfort. We retreat into mindsets of “I am right. You’re wrong. Shut up.”

The antidote to this requires developing an appreciation of our vulnerabilities and the courage to snuggle up to them. Truly connecting with others — colleagues, children, partners, and friends — require most of us to develop new skills, Brown says.

The price we pay for our lack of authenticity is steep, because we shut ourselves off from what is real. We scurry to find ways to numb ourselves to painful emotions. But because it is impossible to selectively shut down emotions, we also disconnect from our compassion and joy. In the worst cases, we turn to destructive habits and unhealthy addictions.

Everyone shares a desire for clarity around who they are, and the confidence to share that with others. It is one more reason to develop the skills and commitments required for authentic conversations.

“When we work from a place that says, ‘I am enough,’ we stop screaming and start listening,” Brown says. “Because we are kinder and gentler with ourselves, we can be kinder and gentler with other people.”

CIVIL IS NOT NECESSARILY AUTHENTIC

We recently received an email from a dear friend and colleague with whom we are working closely to foster civil civic conversation in our community. It contained a comment she saw in a forum discussion on the website of The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), a 1,400-member organization formed in 2002 that promotes learning and collaboration around innovative ways to bring people together for productive conversations around our communities’ most challenging problems. Here is the posting:

It seems to me there is need to begin de-emphasizing the word “civility” as we seek to engage the full political spectrum in conversation. Cognitively, the word “civility” has a defensive posture to it and can, therefore, not be “heard” (or is often heard with suspicion by many as meaning “be nice” — don’t be honest.)

A reframe to “civil conversation” (overused and thus meaningless), could be “authentic conversation”, “meaningful conversation”, “getting real”, “telling it like it is”….

The initial reaction to his post was defensive (even though I couldn’t help liking his reframe suggestion of “authentic conversations.”) Who could possibly advocate that we don’t need to establish “civility” in our society, when harmful effects due to the lack of civility are evident every day?

But on further reflection, we began to open up to the writer’s point. In fact, it was related to a blog we wrote last year.

The adjective “civil” has its roots in “citizen,” according to the dictionary. “Civilized” denotes courtesy and etiquette, with an underlying connotation that it is acceptable to withhold what we consider in the truth in the name of keeping the peace. “Civil often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness,” according to the synonym discussion below the dictionary definitions.

Surely solving our complex, tangled problems demands more of our conversations than avoiding contention or disagreement. Civility in its purest form is not only a perfect recipe for potential resentment; it destroys trust, is unproductive and is potentially dangerous to the common good.

Authentic conversations, as we define them, require telling the truth as we know it — always with goodwill — and the ability to sincerely argue another person’s viewpoint. When we get clear about our intention to be authentic, we come to the conversation with an open and curious attitude. Added to that is a sincere to desire to solve problems in a way that serves the best interests of the whole (community, enterprise, business) rather than satisfying the need to “get our way.”

Truly meaningful civic conversations are those where people choose to be authentically collaborate with each other in the interest of strengthening our communities. They require something far more robust than civility.

 

Written by Maren and Jamie Showkeir

Owners of henning-showkeir & associates, inc., and co-authors of Authentic Conversations: Moving from Manipulation to Truth and Commitment.