Tim Cook – Apple CEO

Tim Cook

“If you want to take credit, first learn to take responsibility.”

Tim Cook, Apple CEO
Stanford University Commencement, 2019

A highly relevant and timely message from the heart of Silicon Valley, where he acknowledged hard questions need to be asked about credit and responsibility. New generations can learn this lesson, so that they won’t repeat the mistakes of others.

 

 

The Responsibility Vacuum

 

There are things happening in the world that I think should worry us all. Those things have been a long time coming, but their implications are potentially very alarming. In short, I fear that if movement continues in the current direction the implications could be terrible, and all that despite the fact that it should have been such a good time. So much has been happening in the world for the last 20-30 years that should be setting humanity up for a world in which there is space and time to deal with challenges like global warming and to continue in the eradication of poverty while empowering humans to take ownership and responsibility for their lives like never before.

But, where are we instead? There are certainly the warning signs that humankind is on the path at an accelerating rate towards a very dark time. Why the fear?

The pictures above are of two pages from the reading material I collected from a Covey Leadership Foundations training programme i attended around ten years ago. I had taken the materials out , as I do from time to time, to review. I find that every time i do this i find something new, can check in on my progress on issues and the commitments that I’d made to myself. These two pages leapt out at me this afternoon and I found myself wondering – if you set up many of the people being handed power in many countries of the world today, how do they stack up against these thirteen behaviours of high-trust leaders? Quite frankly, I’m not going to name the country leaders, but I can think of some who probably fail massively against every one of these thirteen  behaviours.

So, the two questions I found myself thinking about were – in a world where the people are handing power to such low-trust leaders, what does that say about the world today, and what does it suggest about where we’re going in the future? And, as an educator, I can’t help asking what the education systems have done that contributed to people who elect such low-trust leaders?

An optimist might suggest that bad leaders being raised to political high office doesn’t matter, provided there are strong, high quality leaders in other areas, particularly in business. Some would argue that so much of the real power today is now invested in business, when the market capitalisation and cashflow of many major corporations exceed the GDP of many nations. However, when we consider that many of those feckless political leaders owe their elevation to business leaders who have put them on their thrones to serve their business interests, when we see scandals like Enron or Theranos or the actions of banks and financial companies, then business leaders may not be the saviours for the future.

Further, one might say that who are the leaders in politics or business doesn’t really matter as long as people are moral and ethical within their families and their close communities. Many want to believe that their happiness and contentment in life is not dependent upon what’s happening in politics, business, the country or the world.

However, I believe that today there is a slow, dawning realisation that this ostrich thinking has created a ‘crabs in the bucket’ scenario for the vast majority of people. Information about just how daunting are the challenges facing the world from;
a) global warming and climate change,
b) increasing shift of wealth to those already most successful, leaving middle class westerners with stagnating wealth and the younger generation destined to be worse off than their parents’ generation,
c) the vulnerability of millions of jobs (and the financial security they represent) from advances in artificial intelligence and other technologies,
d) the tipping point of no return in terms of personal freedom and liberty as technology enables ‘big brother’ to destroy personal privacy (CCTV, facial recognition, elimination of cash etc.)
e) build ups of lethal, powerful weaponry in the hands of low trust world leaders.

History has shown us what can happen in such circumstances, when uncertainty and insecurity reach extremes. The vast majority of people like to believe on the way up, when life is rosy, that they’re creating their success. However, when uncertainty and insecurity start to snowball, people want to be relieved of their responsibility and accountability for their own lives. ‘Strong’ leaders who ramp up the fear of ‘others’ (anyone not like us) will happily convince them that in return for giving them power, they will be the paternal, benevolent leader who will protect them and relieve them of their responsibilities for themselves. Today, we are seeing different versions of this happening throughout the world. Whether you divide people on religious grounds, blame the ills on drug dealers and users or influx of foreigners. All amount to the same thing.

The evidence is that this is working for people in positions of power. Will it always? Perhaps the worst risks will come when those in power seek to use their positions to achieve aims and goals outside their own countries/ domains. This brings power operations in to conflict with each other eventually. Again, history suggests that the ‘little guys’ are the biggest losers from such situations.

Some readers may find this all rather negative. If there is hope, I believe it lies in this issue of trust. Because, the past also suggests that leaders don’t get to be in control and power indefinitely when their approaches are based on low trust strategies.

Recently, I heard a speaker in a blog post (sorry, I can’t remember the source) talking of responsibility as response ability – the awareness that I have the ability, the freedom, capability and the awareness to be responsible, responsive.  a person with responsibility doesn’t blame others for the state of anything, and doesn’t look for others to provide the solutions to life’s challenges.

Early in this piece I referred to the impact of education in such world experiences. In the last 30-40 years a lot has been done to expand education to a bigger and bigger proportion of the world’s population. However, so far, too many now have access to school, but not necessarily education. Much more must happen to ensure that education for the majority is built upon developing critical thinking skills, empathy and emotional intelligence and a generation of young people who genuinely embrace their right and duty to take full and complete responsibility for their own lives. On Friday we saw the biggest demonstrations yet across the world from young people striking from school to take to the streets to demand action on human impact on global warming. This is encouraging. We are seeing first signs of young people in the US turning against the politicians on the issues of gun control after the awful pattern of shootings in schools which cannot be rationalised away by thinking, educated people.

So, there is hope, and educators must understand the role that they have to play.

 

Backing Winners or Solving Problems?

problem-300x200

Few types of ‘managers/ leaders’  pride themselves more on their skills at solving problems than school administrators. Many school Heads revel in the image of themselves as the calm vortex in the middle of a chaotic storm. For them, the more manically busy the school day, the more they believe they are proving their worth as leaders. They take great satisfaction and achieve much of their status from their zen-like unruffled calm as they solve problems left, right and centre.

Whilst i don’t want to burst anyone’s bubble, I think this is a mistake and there is a better way of leading schools that can give them the scope to be better institutions delivering a better education for all pupils.

My starting point is an experience that has stuck with me for many years, that I’ve seen mirrored subsequently in the literature for personal development, happiness and, I believe, applies to organisations as well. The experience was when I was in my late 20’s and working for a Private Bank in the UK – providing a wide range of financial services to the richest clients of our bank. I had been managing an office for around 18 months and its performance was going really well; outperforming on sales and revenue targets, customer retention and all other measures. However, our Region was marginally under performing against targets. I had a regular monthly meeting with the Regional Sales Head.

We had a good rapport and the meeting that day took the form of a wide ranging brainstorming session. In the late afternoon we were batting around ideas  in a ‘reject nothing’ environment. At a particular point, I commented that most of our discussion related to problems – the offices with the biggest sales target deficits, the sales staff who weren’t achieving up to expectations etc.  We agreed to talk about what it might look like if we reversed and deliberately took control of Pareto’s Principal.

What would it look like if we spent 80% of our time and energy on the 20% who were achieving at the highest levels?

The Pareto Principle is better known as the 80:20 Rule. It states that 20% of a company’s customers contribute 80% of the profits, 20% give 80% of the problems and can be applied in many other ways. The important thing is to reccognise the principle, not to get hung up on the exact numbers. It had been set out in a book by Richard Koch around the time of our discussion. I still have my original first edition copy of the book

We were both excited by the idea and formulated some thoughts about what our days and actions might look like if we deliberately and consciously focused our energies on our 20% best customers and particularly in the sales team, the 20% of sales staff who were performing best.

There were a few months left in the financial year. During that time we did more on-the-job observations with our best staff, arranged an advanced sales skills course aimed at the best performing sales staff. One of the tougher parts was that we both set about being somewhat elusive for the ‘problem’ staff. Either we weren’t available, or we arranged pre-planned short ‘touch base meetings in which discussion would deliberately get cut short if they started talking about problems. When they did, the key was to always ensure that they left the table still owning their own problem.

Personally, the first effect I experienced was a lightening and enjoying my work more. I felt less weighed down by negativity. Across the Region, the responses were very positive. One very strong, high performing sales person turned down a job offer to go elsewhere (he was on the verge of agreeing to go). Three sales people who had been consistently weak over a number of years resigned and informed they wished to leave the company over a period of 6 months. This created the opportunity to promote and take on some new employees. The sales performance of the Region rose. Stronger performers became more ready to come forward and support less experienced (but positive) colleagues.

So, my question here is, applying the same principles, what would a similar Pareto approach in a school look like? Firstly, I think Principals would need to stop saying, “my door is always open,” to all. More selectivity is vital to ensure that 80% of time is available to go towards those who are positive, achieving and applying positive mindsets. Now, I can immediately hear the cries of callousness, of giving up on some people without giving them a chance to improve etc. However, I’m not advocating that school leaders ignore the under achievers, whiners and overly negative, but simply reduce the amount of time they spend with them to having them acknowledge their own ownership for the issues, commit to a timetable to deal with them and occasionally to follow up to see that they have done so.

The reality is that even if leaders could free up 10% of their time in a school day to spend with high achievers, coaching and supporting them to raise their game still further, three things in particular would happen;

a) Those high achievers with strong growth mindset would be enabled to achieve still more, have higher levels of motivation knowing that they are appreciated and valued (not ignored and left to fend for themselves because they’re not problems),

b) The leader would find they have more energy and drive.  Invariably, the kinds of people we are talking about here, the ‘problem’ people are energy takers or drainers. They stride in to the leader’s office with; “There’s a problem I think you need to know about,” They leave after some time task free and the leader just inherited yet another task to add to their already overloaded schedule.

c) There would actually be less problems. The culture of the organisation would be way more empowered. What the leader would be much more likely to hear about is situations that had arisen, been dealt with and were no longer of concern. It’s not a compliment to the leader if everything has to rise to the top for a decision. In a culture where attention is given to those who solve problems, that becomes the default expectation.

One final thought – if you were to ask most leaders they could probably list out their staff members who sap their energy (and that of their colleagues) and those who underperform, are overly negative in their mindsets and who sap time. What they may not have stopped to consider is how much they could do with the time freed up if they stopped pandering to these people’s toxicity. Also, many will argue that they have to tolerate these individuals in their teams because they are good subject experts or bring some skills which would be hard to replace. However, i believe this is mistaken and that it fails to take full account of the overall harm that toxicity and negativity brings.

As leaders, we steer our organisations in the direction where we place the majority of our attention. If we focus on problems, even successfully solved problems, that’s what we’ll have. Instead, I’m arguing for a stronger focus on positive, self-directed teams and individuals who accept accountability, take ownership and responsibility and move the organisation forward.

Footnote! I’m not advocating here that we apply 80:20 to pupils or to ‘customers’ (parents). This is where schools are not like conventional businesses, who might pick and choose the customers they want to give most attention on the basis of profitability etc.  That would be unethical. In fact, on that issue I believe that schools tend to err towards paying too much attention to students who lie at both ends of the bell curve, often leaving those in the middle not getting as much support to fulfil their potential. But that’s for another article, another day.

 

%d bloggers like this: