Stop balancing and start integrating.

Leadership
When you take intentional action to do what matters for people who matter, then your stress goes down.  You feel a greater sense of control, and you learn that you have more freedom than you thought you had.  ~Stew Friedman

The phrase “work-life balance” was first used in the U.S. in 1986.  However, the work-leisure dichotomy was invented in the mid-1800s.  Author Paul Krassner says that anthropologists use the definition of happiness that is to have as little separation as possible “between your work and play.”   

How do you know if you’re out of balance?  There are several clues.  First, 75%-90% of physician visits are related to stress and, according to the American Institute of Stress, the cost to industry has been estimated at $200 billion-$300 billion a year.  So, if your stress level is sending you to the doctor, then you are quite likely out of balance.

If you feel a loss of control or you live an out-of-control life, that’s another clue.  If you can tell that your productivity is down, or you aren’t engaged in your community, those too are signs of a lack of balance.

But this isn’t about balanceanymore.  More and more authors and experts suggest a view of work-life integration.  Balance suggests that our lives are compartmentalized; that the domains of our life should not overlap or become interdependent.  Using anthropologists’ definition of happiness to illustrate integration, it’s when there is little separation between work and play. 

When I read several articles and blog posts on this topic, I noticed a word was used repeatedly: deliberate.  Integration is about making deliberate choices.  Instead of assuming that our domains of life are being thrust upon us, we make deliberate choices about those domains.  Stew Friedman says we should “Design an experiment in which you are deliberately aiming to improve your performance and results in each of the four domains (work, home, community, self)—not to trade them off or to balance one against the other, but to enhance all of them.”

Authors Boris Groysberg and Robin Abrahams describe it this way in a recent article in HBR, “By making deliberate choices about which opportunities they’ll pursue and which they’ll decline, rather than simply reacting to emergencies, leaders can and do engage meaningfully with work, family, and community.  They’ve discovered through hard experience that prospering in the senior ranks is a matter of carefully combining work and home so as not to lose themselves, their loved ones, or their foothold on success.  Those who do this most effectively involve their families in work decisions and activities.  They also vigilantly manage their own human capital, endeavoring to give both work and home their due—over years, not weeks or days.”

My takeaway from reading several articles on this topic, in order to have work-life integration, is to first define what success looks like in all areas of your life – work, home, community, and self.  Then, be deliberate about enhancing all of them and stop trying to make trade-offs among them.  Have as little separation as possible between work and play.

Deliberate integration can reduce stress and give you a sense of control you thought was only wishful thinking.

When was your last “moment of poverty”?

Leadership
A moment of poverty; it is this opening that we all wait and long for.  One side calls forth and also creates the other—and neither side needs or wants to take the credit.  It is the essence of what we mean by grace, the ecstasy of intimacy. ~Richard Rohr   A moment of poverty is the ultimate act of leadership.  ~Kathryn Scanland

What is a moment of poverty?  For most of us, when we think about poverty we think of a lack of financial means.  But the meaning of the word poverty has nothing to do with money or finances.  Poverty means a lack, a shortage, deficiency or scarcity of anything.  We’ve just become accustomed to using it almost exclusively for financial poverty.

Several years ago, I traveled to the remote rural regions of Zambia.  I was certainly anticipating poverty.  In fact, numerous people had warned me about being overwhelmed by the extreme poverty that I would witness.  When I stepped out of the Range Rover at the first village we visited, one of the most remote and underdeveloped, their poverty didn’t overwhelm me.  It was how my own poverty was exposed that overwhelmed me.  Sure, I had far more financial means than they did.  However, they had far more joy, peace, contentment, and sacrificial hospitality than I had ever experienced, or even thought possible.  It was a humbling moment of vulnerability.  It was a moment of poverty—my poverty.

Dr. Henry Cloud said that to be an effective leader, a leader of integrity, “you must be strong enough to depend upon, but vulnerable enough to identify with.”  If leaders can be open to moments of poverty, and embrace them as opportunities for grace and intimacy with colleagues and employees, their likelihood to have people follow them will be significantly enhanced.  Simon Sinek, in Leaders Eat Last, says “You’ve got to STEP AWAY from the spreadsheets and the computer screen; you’ve got to get out of the board room, you’ve got to do more than blast off a memo here and a memo there – you’ve got to show em’ that you care and show em’ that you’re there.”    

What better way to be vulnerable and show the people you work with that you’re there than to allow your own poverty to be exposed. 

An example: you’re in a planning meeting with the team you lead.  You suggest a strategy that’s got merit but it’s not necessarily mind blowing.  Then a staff member speaks up and suggests a strategy that demonstrates real innovate thinking and has the possibility of something akin to hitting it out of the ballpark.  Instead of forcing your idea through, since you hold the leadership position, you commend their creativity and not only support their idea but suggest they take the lead on that strategy.  A moment of poverty can be as simple as demonstrating that you don’t always have the best idea (because you don’t!).

Moments of poverty can be the recognition that you don’t know, that you don’t have the answer (right now), that you have limitations, that something isn’t your strength but it is someone else’s, that you have experienced some of the very same struggles (professional and personal) that some of your employees are experiencing.  It’s recognizing that sometimes you are deficient and someone else is more than sufficient.  And neither side wants or needs to take the credit.  It is the essence of grace, the ultimate act of leadership.

For a few minutes on the third day of an NBA scandal, a sports figure led by example

Leadership
Conciseness signals strength, certitude and honesty – particularly at a time when long-winded leaders seem determined to hide their true intent behind a flood of empty words and promises.  Americans crave authenticity and action from their leaders.  ~The National Journal commenting on Adam Silver

In the last week, this was the title of a feature story in USA Today (April 29, 2014): “Adam Silver gives Donald Sterling lifetime ban from NBA.”  The story began with the following two paragraphs.

Until a few days ago, few people in America could have picked Adam Silver out of a crowd.  Tall, thin and, let’s be honest, a bit nerdy looking, the new NBA commissioner could have been any other harried executive or overworked attorney in New York. 

Now, however, Silver is an American hero.  His lifetime ban of Donald Sterling and impassioned defense of common decency earned him praise from players, owners and fans, as well as everyday folks who just wanted to see the right thing done and were thrilled someone had the courage to do it.

Adam Silver has since been described as “a great leader,” “someone who showed great leadership,” and “we have a great leader leading…” to list only a few of the comments published about Silver over the past week.

I am one of those people who fall into the category of “everyday folks” when it comes to this recent news event regarding Adam Silver and the NBA’s decision.  But I was certainly intrigued so I viewed Mr. Silver’s full announcement to the press.  I wanted to see what he did that has garnered such praise and recognition.  From my point of view, he was unapologetic, he was firm, he was clear.  I also noted, however, what he didn’t do.  He didn’t attack Mr. Sterling’s character, he didn’t waver from the facts and make assumptions about Mr. Sterling’s motives, and he didn’t interject any self-congratulatory comments. 

I think what Mr. Silver didn’t do may have won him the recognition of sports fans, as well as those of us yearning for any national display of leadership, more than what he did.  Think about it.  When was the last time we heard a politician (or other national figure) steer clear of attacking character, making assumptions about someone else’s motives, and showcasing their own self-righteous behavior?   We haven’t seen this kind of leadership on the national stage for so long that it almost caught us off-guard; we almost forgot how to recognize leadership that wasn’t self-centered.

Now to bring this a little closer to home, this kind of attacking, self-righteous grandstanding can be found in our conference rooms, executive offices, on Facebook, and in blog comments.  Maybe we’ve strayed so far from effective leadership because we’ve also strayed so far from true dialogue and effective communication.  Having our right to express our opinion (which is self-centered) has become more important than achieving a positive, helpful outcome (which is other-centered).

Adam Silver.  A name we all recognize, at least for the moment, because he reminded us that there is another approach to leadership.  An approach that is authoritative and respectful, firm yet compassionate.  Thank you, Mr. Silver for a long overdue example of effective leadership.

Do you manage or curate your talent?

Leadership
Much of the job of a leader is to become a curator of talent: to find the talented people who can do their best work in the environment of your organization.  ~ Faisal Hoque

This past weekend, as I do periodically, I went on an art gallery tour in the River North neighborhood in Chicago.  This happened to be one of those very rare occasions when I was the only person who showed up for the free tour.  And I was fortunate enough to have a tour guide from one of the galleries who I know fairly well.  I’ve done this enough times that I offered to be my own “guide” so he could go back to his work, but he too wanted to visit the galleries included on the route for the day, so off we went.    

I go on these tours because I’m fascinated not only by the art but also by the art gallery business.  So I tend to ask sort of unusual questions on these tours about running a successful art gallery.  One of the things I’ve learned, is that the more successful galleries are really good curators.  They typically represent about 8-12 artists and there will be a focus or commonality among those artists.  For example, one gallery exhibits only contemporary Asian art, another represents only Russian artists, and some focus only on modern art, etc.  And the gallery owners are very particular about which artists they will represent in their galleries.  I think it’s much like what Faisal Hoque said, “…find the talented [artists] who can do their best work in the environment of your .”  

Not too long ago, I asked one of the art gallery owners what buyers or collectors were looking for when they came to their gallery.  Her response, “I think they are typically looking for a specific color scheme.”  That was not the answer I anticipated, and consequently that gallery is no longer in business.  They were not good curators.  They had art on the walls, but had not practiced a great deal of care in the selection of that art for the environment of their gallery.    

In Everything Connects, author Faisal Hoque says, “The Medieval Latin is curate, a person responsible for the care of souls, or curator, an overseer or guardian.  If you walk into an art gallery you will find yourself in a curated space such that the overall effect of the works in the room will be greater than the sum of the parts.  There will be, in other words, a synergy among the exhibition’s components and their arrangement; an additional value will be added by the way the pieces are put together.”

One of the trends in HR is to refer to HR as talent management.  I’ve never really cared for that terminology and now I think I know why.  Because managing talent sounds like a leadership style that’s focused on “command and control.”  It also seems almost disrespectful.  If employees are truly talent then wouldn’t it be much more respectful to care for their souls like a guardian rather than to manage them? 

Sometimes I’m a bit surprised by how quickly some leaders select members for their leadership team.  This should be something akin to an art gallery owner who has identified precisely the type of art and artists who will best fit their gallery.  Then they painstakingly search the world (I mean that literally) for just the right fit for both their gallery and collectors.  Now, imagine the difference between leadership talent that is “managed” and leadership talent that is “curated.”  

Are you naked, but don’t know it?

Leadership
High-performance leaders realize that more often than not they just don’t know how their people really feel about their leadership.  ~Michael C. Feiner

This past week the fairy tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, or The Emperor Has No Clothes, whichever title you prefer, has been going through my mind.  I’ve thought of this tale because I’ve seen leadership “teams” not acting at all like a team but assuming that no else in the organization really notices. 

If you’re not familiar with the Danish fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen in 1837, here’s a quick synopsis.

Many years ago there lived an emperor who cared only about his clothes and about showing them off. One day he heard from two swindlers that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.  

Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were.  

The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing.  He was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid.  

Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said: “But he has nothing on”!  

This was whispered from person to person until everyone in the crowd was shouting that the emperor had nothing on. The emperor heard it and felt that they were correct, but held his head high and finished the procession.

Do you really know how people feel about your leadership; or, are you naked but just don’t know it or think if you ignore the fact that you’re naked everyone else will ignore it as well?  Sometimes it really surprises me how leadership perceptions and/or culture around leadership can get so far out of whack before leaders acknowledge that things aren’t going well and they own how they have contributed to the problem. 

Too many times a leader’s first instinct is to figure out how to “fix” everyone else.  But fixing everyone else means the leader is still naked.  Leaders need to acknowledge their nakedness and put on some clothes.  In other words, acknowledge that things aren’t going well and it’s likely something that everyone realizes (the elephant in the room) and identify the three things that you (the leader) will own and personally change to begin to address the issue.  Acknowledge it.  Own it.  Change it.    

If you’re naked, please put on some clothes!