The cynical leader says, “If there is doubt, if there is uncertainty, or when I need a distraction – reorganize!” 

There are many reasonable ways to design an organization’s reporting structure and operating model.  All organizations must adapt to changing environments and objectives. 

The key parallel questions:

                What problem are we trying to solve?

                What problems do we prefer to have?

A foundational question (the answer is rarely obvious): What business are we in?

I observe these common pivot points where designs flex over time:

• Centralized Decisions and Skills vs. De-centralized Decisions and Skills

• Global vs. Regional vs. Local standards and processes

• Rely on the unique strength mix of an individual in a role vs. a Structured Team or Program

(Can you think of others?)

I call these pivot points because we tend to swing the pendulum from one side to the other.  Each point along the spectrum has its problems, therefore there will always be someone who recommends a reorganization or redesign in order to solve a present problem.  

Three foundational truths:

• Systems are perfectly designed to deliver the results they deliver. 
• Systems respond to feedback loops and incentives. 
• If you don’t like the results, you must modify the system.

Be alert to a common temptation to fix a failing system: wrapping it inside a management system.  Rather than address the real problem, we prefer to “manage” it via another layer or system.  This is not a solution.

Examples which illustrate the importance of incentives:

Frustrating system result	Possible incentive problem
Cost of healthcare escalating faster than inflation	3rd party insurance backed by corporate and government funding sources are incentivized to increase costs and hide real costs from patients
College grads without good job prospects and crushing student loan debt	Colleges incentivized to get students in rather than produce graduates with good prospects
A company’s tiny but exciting new line of business struggles to get resourcing commitment when competing against existing profit centers	Short-term maximum profit perspective
The “usual” people are picked for roles over others who are qualified but “just outside” the usual group	Zero weighting for “bring new and uncomfortable” experiences to the table

The proposed solutions to each of these examples are often a “management layer.”  Gird yourself to be deeply disappointed with the new results.

The path to improving a system centers on changing the incentives which drive the results.  Blunt reality for leaders: Changing the incentives is difficult and will be opposed by those who currently benefit from the existing system. 

I could tie my shoelaces as a youngster, but my shoes were often loose enough to come off my feet. My strategy was to keep tying more knots in the laces until I didn’t have any shoelace left to work with. My grandfather said to me, “Glenn, if the first knot isn’t tight, it doesn’t matter how many more knots you tie on top.”

It’s awkward and hard to untie knot after knot to get down to where the real problem exists.  Yet this is the necessary work to transform a system to create desirable results.  The key is stay focused on the value of the results from different incentives driving the system.

I can fall asleep quickly almost anytime, anywhere.  (It’s the only positive to serious apnea.)  One of two things happen when I wake up in the quiet of the night and can’t quickly return to sleep.  One: My brain kicks into gear and starts working on immediate problems of the day and week.  Two: I replay difficult experiences from my past, pondering what they meant, what might have been done or said differently, what I learned. 

A pattern I’ve observed about experiencing difficult circumstances:

You learn things you didn’t expect, and couldn’t have planned for.

I listen to someone recount

• the grinding struggle of a serious illness (for them or a relative or friend)
• the ugly endurance run of a business decline, or project failure, or divorce
• a time when long-cherished dreams were vaporized
• a miserable job or work situation.

They describe what they learned and it’s rarely directly about the events. Instead, they highlight a realization about themselves, describe how they changed, or illustrate a deeper aspects of life in an imperfect world. 

Our difficult experiences become parables to explain something deep to others.   (This is partly why I seek out articulate older people – they can share this depth in a way I can appreciate.)

All the genuine learning you’ll treasure decades from now comes from times when you (willingly or not) were outside your comfort zone.  History gives no reason to believe you’ll escape difficulties; you will go through difficult times.  Beyond these, seek adventures.  Don’t be foolish or reckless, but take calculated risks.  The learning opportunities are worth the costs.

I know what people mean by the phrase “change management,” but the truth is that you can’t manage change for others.  You can give people new or better information.  You can offer perspectives.  You can provide examples and model behaviors.  These are the direct actions you take which indirectly influence people to change their behaviors.

Despite generations of fervent wishing by leaders in every situation imaginable, we cannot directly control or manage these critical elements in others:

• Trust
• Mindsets
• Creative contributions
• Engagement

Let’s go further.  The bigger the gap between cause and effect, the more consistency matters. 

Leader-induced fear and threats can produce gains over short times (or short project distances).  No other relationship power other than positional authority is required. My observation is that everything created under these circumstances carries its own built-in “kill switch.”  Coercion works to a point, then the results crumble swiftly. 

Love, inspiration, and modeling – all done consistently – are the investment which can sustain a long-term, long-distance result. 

Fostering a set of changed behaviors in a group is difficult.  It’s important, especially in the most frustrating moments on the long journey, to remind yourself about the difference between “responsible to” and “responsible for.”  Do everything in your power to fulfill your “responsible to” obligations.  Be at peace with yourself when the changes are slow; take a steady-on posture.

I’ve had the privilege of seeing how multiple, diverse businesses operate as a DuPont employee.  I’ve interviewed people who work in a large array of companies, non-profits, and the military. A recurring lesson: every business, every craft, every industry is complex and complicated.  The rabbit holes run deep everywhere. 

This is not a bad thing, but a reflection of reality.  It’s why decentralized control is so critical to success!  Central authoritarianism models cannot possibly keep up with real-world dynamics.  

We rightly worry about silos within an organization – groups that operate largely independently and unaware of what’s going on in other areas.  Siloed thinking and working misses opportunities for improving the system as a whole, for new and exciting work for employees, and for creating new products and services.  Silos tend to foster self-reinforcing bureaucratic organizations which have no interaction with actual customers or the markets.

There are many aspects of silos and bureaucracy which you cannot control and barely shape if you’re employed in a large organization.  Influence as you can.

The best strategy is to get to the top of silos often, and from there you can see into other silos at least a little bit.  You have a greater chance of interaction with actual customers and marketplace issues.

Elevation grants you perspective.  This is not only about being promoted into senior positions, though pursue them if it’s good for you and others.  Get closer to the tops of silos by volunteering for special projects, cross-functional committees, and intentionally networking with senior leaders to hear their views. 

Skilled leaders take what see and learn at the top of a silo back to others working much lower in the silo.  This helps everyone.

I recently finished writing and publishing my 17^th book, “Bold and Gentle: Thriving Wisely in an Age of Exponential Change.”  A friend asked, “Got any more books in you?” 

Yes, I’m sure I do, though I don’t know precisely which book I’ll publish next. 

Peter Drucker was a wise and prolific business thinker, perhaps the greatest in the 20^th century.  Here’s a picture of all the books he published:

At age 65 Peter Drucker had written only one third of his books.  When he was 86 years old Jim Collins asked him which book he was most proud of.  “The next one!” he replied. He published 10 more after age 86 and had a manuscript in development when he died at age 92!

Let’s remind one another that the view out the windshield is larger and better than the rear-view mirror.  If you’re here, you have something to contribute, some way to leave a legacy. 

Burnout.  The word even feels horrible.  Burnout people are wounded. It happens – and it’s likely to happen at least a few times over the span of your working years.

You need rest and recovery time.  This will be longer than you might imagine.  Don’t believe this lie: “Just a few days away will make me chipper again.”

The point of rest and recovery time is to put you in a place to begin healing.  The healing process takes time, solitude, reflection, and being with emotionally healthy people.  Smart people get help at this stage.  You’ll always be leading from your woundedness if you don’t pursue healing after a recovery time.

Once the healing process is underway you have two basic choices:

1. Return the role or job you had before
2. Enter into a new role or job (most common)

Key point: You must work differently in either #1 or #2, or else you go back into burnout.  If you don’t learn to work differently (and this probably includes working with and around healthy people), you’ll continue to be miserable and fill up your narrative with lies and blame.  This is a crumbling foundation for effective leadership.

The lesson to absorb from burnout is that you must learn to work sustainably, healthily, for the right reasons. 

The saddest way to “work differently” is to stop caring.  It’s just a job.  You defend yourself by risking nothing of yourself in the role.  You’re better than this.   

I’ve been asked for my views on Stoicism. 

I consider the writings of the great Stoics an essential part of appreciating Western Civilization, especially Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Cato the Younger, and Epictetus.  They have practical advice for understanding ourselves and relating to all kinds of people and circumstances.  They promote self-discipline and sober judgment.  Practicing Stoics manage their emotions well, avoiding the worst consequences of anger, sadness, and pride. 

Stoicism is a perfect philosophical system for atheists because it outlines a workable life code of standards and behaviors without requiring either the supernatural or a moral code from outside of yourself.  Thus the danger of Stoicism is that you can fool yourself and be self-oriented at the expense of others, because there need be nothing outside of your own judgment to call you to account. 

I can admire the Stoics and learn from them.  They promoted practical wisdom for real-world living, which is why I recommend studying their writings. But Stoicism falls short because the physical realm is not all there is.  I believe in a sovereign God who is the Creator and defines what is right and wrong.  I believe in God’s active interaction with people.  God speaks in ways we can understand, though there is mystery. God’s common love sustains all of us; His specific love expressed in Jesus rescues those who believe in Him. 

Every time there is a gap in information you’re forced to choose between trust and suspicion.*

Choose to trust by default. 

Trust usually works in most situations.  Think of how we often get new information later on to explain what was going on.  Misunderstandings and poor communication are the gasoline engine for a considerable fraction of conflict, hurt feelings, and (frankly) dis-engagement.

Choosing to trust is much easier on your psyche and emotional engine.  Trust conquers the kind of fretting which burns away energy without producing anything useful.  Choose charitable and optimistic explanations of gaps instead of allowing your imagination to flood your synapses with disaster scenarios. 

Perhaps most important for leaders: Believing the best about your team brings out the best from your team members.

Choosing to trust by default means you’ll get burned occasionally.  Our world gives us many reasons to be cynical.  Thus the honored strategy of “trust and verify.” 

There are people who by words and behaviors you will trust little or not at all.  Redemption in these cases is expensive.

There are new-to-you or new-to-this-role people whom you can give a default level of starting trust, and they’ll earn more over time. 

There’s a continuum of trust right up to “trust with my life.”

When (not if) you are burned, purposefully translate any hurt into a lesson for the future.  Acknowledge hurt and disappointment, but don’t hold on to bitterness for one second longer than necessary to get past it. 

*Andy Stanley is the modern writer I’ve read expressing this truth, but the concept appears in the writings of Cicero, Erasmus, and Machiavelli, too.  People are still people, which means these principles work over long periods of time.

HT: I’ve learned a great deal about this topic from my own mentors and the writing of Cary Nieuwhof, Henry Cloud, and Richard Foster. 

Leaders often face fuzzy and poorly-defined problems.  It’s hard to see their edges.  Sometimes you have a vague sense of the problem but aren’t sure how big it is. 

There’s a helpful “trick” to getting more clarity on dimly-lit problems:  Look to the side of them.

I was 8 years old when our Cub Scout leader took us on a night hike in the woods.  We were following a path in the pale moonlight, forbidden to use our flashlights, walking as silently as we could to listen for animal noises.  Our leader gave us about 20 minutes in the meadow at the edge of the woods for our eyes to adjust.  He also told us that we’d see better in the dim light if we didn’t look directly at objects but just to the side.  I was amazed how much better I could see the branches and rocks that way!  I learned later on that amateur astronomers do the same thing to better see dim stars in the night sky.

This visual trick is ancient wisdom rooted in the way the human eye is organized.  There are two types of photo-receptor cells, cones and rods.  Cones are less abundant, see color and bright light, and are concentrated at the center of the retina.  Rods are more abundant, can’t see color, and a distributed at the edges of the retina.

Individual cone cells are directly wired to the retina nerves.  It takes many photons of light to stimulate a cone cell, so they’re practically useless in dim light.  You might have noticed that even bright colors only look gray at night. 

Many rod cells are clustered to a single retinal nerve.  Each cell can pick up a small number of photons, but it takes a group of rod cells to fire the retinal nerve.  Rod cells are great for detecting movement at the edge of your vision, but have low acuity.  You might think it’s an animal moving in the dark toward you but it turns out to be trash blowing in the wind.

The combination of cone and rod cells gives humans the full range of color in daylight and decent navigation and threat detection in dim light. 

Back to fuzzy problem solving.  

As much as we favor and reward initiative and focused action, there are many organization and project problems which simply won’t yield to a direct assault.  Come at them from an angle.  Intentionally turn off the bright light focus and look askance to see them differently, often more clearly.  Let your subconscious work on it while you’re walking your dog, cleaning house, or sleeping.  Trust that new insights will come.