Big Hairy Audacious Goals Versus The Devils You Know

Bill Taylor’s HBR Blog post today -- “Don’t Let What You Know Limit What You Imagine” -- strikes at the heart of a strategic planning challenge for professional service organizations in today’s marketplace.  Begin with bright business minds, add expertise and deep experience, blend with volatility, unpredictability and a touch of fear, and you have a recipe that can result in the devils we know defining the way we think, act and communicate.

You know the saying -- Be careful...the devil you know may end up being better than the one you don’t know.

When much is at stake -- not to mention those moments when crisis looms -- the desire to study history, examine the past, and leverage experience is understandable.  The great challenge -- in fact, one of the things that differentiates those who actually inspire, innovate and change the future from would-be leaders -- is balanced perspective.

Case in point — as the father of a soon to be 20-year old daughter, it’s difficult for me not to speak completely out of personal experience when I offer advice on dating.  ”I know exactly how immature boys your age are because I was one!”  Few would dispute that my perspective is rooted in fact.  But the problem (apart from the fact that my target audience has limited interest in this message) is that this one-dimensional perspective does little to facilitate progress.

What does this have to do with organizational thinking, planning and communication?  Simply this: without exception, when couched and “toned” only by data points of the past, an organization’s mindset, planning and message will lack dimension, limit vision, and seed faulty action.

Absent a perspective that allows for (and prompts) vision, communication is either a recitation of history or an account of current conditions. If that data is less than stellar the chances are great that the devils we know have far too much influence.

Consider this: had the framework for Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or poetic Second Inaugural been couched in the reality of recent history, or even the moment, his speeches would simply have decried the nation’s condition, and mourned those yet to die. Instead, Lincoln used the past to give birth to a new vision.

Had Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the throng gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. speaking only out of experience, the “I have a dream” refrain would never have passed his lips.

And in the wake of the USSR having won the race to orbit the earth, President Kennedy dared to stir the US with an unthinkable vision — to put a man on the moon.

Take a look at what these examples have in common.

• They do not gloss over or ignore the realities of the past;
• They broaden perspective;
• They speak of possibilities for the future;
• They call for participation.

Put another way — what Lincoln, King and Kennedy did was transcend data, and seed a vision. Some might suggest that known data points and vision represent opposite perspectives — that the former is grounded in fact and the later is right-side-of-the-brain creativity at its best . . . spin at worst. Yet, pivotal moments are often marked by the communication of a leader who, unprepared for the past to define the future, is able to articulate a new view of the horizon.

Pivotal moments — whether in commerce, social enterprise, political endeavors and even personal adventure – come when decision makers understand that most of us are anxious to be done with the devils we have known.  We simply need someone to help us with the vision of what might be.

Most of us are still stirred by a dream -- by the challenge inherent in what Jim Collins called Big Hairy Audacious Goals.

Five Keys To Better Conversations

To the degree that one life intersects with another – at home, on the job, socially (yes, even via social media) – few things are more central to progress and success than the art of dialogue.

Whether a political agenda, the endeavors of enterprise, social awareness and reform or a family’s pursuits, progress is impossible in the absence of an intentional and consistent focus on better conversations.  Better than what?  Better than those we had last year…last month…yesterday.

There is little value in having the same conversations over and over.  Eventually, no one is listening.  So, here are five ideas – two things to steer clear of, and three proactive steps -- that will instigate better conversations and more productive dialogue.

1) Avoid the devils you know.  These come in all shapes and sizes.  They may be rooted in legitimate analysis or the ghosts of self-awareness.  And though understanding the past is one of the ways to avoid repeating it, conversations (in the context of any relationship) that begin with the issues of past experiments and experiences rarely last long enough to break new ground.  Change – indeed progress – is born of aspirations.  Better conversations focus here.

2) Pass on the blame game.  It’s popular, and everyone plays it.  So much so that, masquerading as analysis, the language of blame (or CYA) is often the default language in any change related dialogue.  Understanding what precipitated difficulties of the past might be instructive (though I’m not convinced of that fact).  But attempts here almost always polarize and stymie.  Affixing blame is a waste of time, and an inhibitor of real conversing.  When it is of consequence, you can bet those who need to already have a sense who is to blame.  Play a different game.

3) Change the discussion.  This is the game we should be about, because it facilitates connection.  Much of the time the reason progress is so slow and minuscule is we’re engaging in the same discussions…over and over.  The same debate.  The same case.  The same retort.  And the same result.  Rather, invest in creativity and innovation.  Want to stand a discussion on its ear?  Drop pre-conceived agendas and seed a new idea.  Where true progress is the objective, new ideas – not agendas or platforms – will fuel a better brand of dialogue.

4) Be about solutions.  Conversations that begin with the problems rarely move past them.  Should you need a case study, witness the current non-dialogue in Washington, D.C.  Solutions, on the other hand, require creative thinking, broad (and deep) perspective, and a measure of courage.  Solutions to real-world-issues – without respect to venue – come laden with responsibility.  Whether on a personal level, in the workplace, or in the most convoluted of socio-political environs, solutions to multi-layered challenges always require on-going dialogue.  Solutions to our greatest challenges cannot be communicated via sound bite.

5) Listen more than you talk.  Ah! Here is the rub.  To the degree that conversation is merely what we tolerate in order to make our point and present our agenda, there is no real dialogue.  Dialogue is about erasing the whiteboard, and beginning anew.  Dialogue invests in intentional listening – without agenda, in search of shared aspirations, because this is where connection occurs.

At the risk of stating the obvious, all of this flies in the face of a communication strategy that says identify your message and stay on point no matter the topic or specific question might be.  Dialogue is hard work.  It is not media or camera-friendly.  Good sound bites are the accidental product of actual communication.

And so enterprise cranks out its marketing-speak; politicians rehearse and reiterate their sound bites; client service groups invent new ways to deflect criticism; we all learn to speak the same language, engage in the same conversations over and over; no one is listening…and dialogue is minimal.

I’m determined to be a part of better conversations.  Not only will the past not define the future, the mistakes of yesterday will not cloud today’s conversations.  If just you and I were to commit, what opportunities might be discovered?

A Little Less Talk -- Please!

I have a friend who argues that the smaller an airline is, the more the flight attendants tend to talk -- before and during the flight.  He suggests this isn’t simply about the size of the operation, but more a reflexion of some variation on an inferiority complex.

If you spend much time flying, you’ve probably seen it.  The greetings, warnings, lists of regulations, and sometimes even general flight narrative begin almost before you’re seated and seem endless.  My friend’s point, only half-tongue-in-cheek, is that the more the operation wrestles with a feeling of inferiority, the more chatter passengers are forced to endure.  “We know all the jargon.  These are real planes...with exits, colorful emergency lights and even refreshments!”

My friend is, to a certain degree, joking of course.  But the principle is applicable in various venues.  Witness the blather spewed from virtually every corner of the United States political arena at the moment.

Another friend, when contemplating the longer-than-the-average-citizen-can-imagine vacation season enjoyed by those who work (presumably for us) on Capital Hill, says “at least for a few weeks we can rest easy.  Freedom is safe from their votes.”

Too bad television cameras and microphones are still accessible -- vacation or not.

Half an ear to the marketplace today makes it clear that few believe it will ever happen; but amid a credit rating downgrade and a 500-point drop on Wall Street, one can’t help wonder what things might look like if those to whom we’ve entrusted the republic lost access to the cameras and microphones.  Unable to posture and ponder the next soundbite, might they focus on their job?

But in that our influence over those we’ve sent to Washington seems minimal, a bit of introspection seems in order.  When will we, as constituents, take responsibility?  When will we let those who work for us know that what they do speaks so loudly we cannot hear (and no longer care) what they say?

When will we finally reject all the noise -- without respect to party or professed ideology, and no matter how eloquent?  When will we acknowledge that each time we vote based solely on soundbites, narrow agendas, and promises that we know cannot be kept, we perpetuate what we are experiencing today?

And, as long as we’re dealing with real questions, when will we get off the couch and engage in the process before it is time to bemoan the broken system?

Isn't it time for something more than talk?  Have we any quiet, wise leaders in our midst?  And would we allow them to lead?