That to us is the worldly mind-set. Being worldly does not require global coverage, just as global coverage does not a worldly mind-set make. But there are companies that seem to be reasonably global as well as worldly—a Shell, perhaps.
Shell has, of course, long covered the globe. But because of social pressures, including a headquarters that has always had to work across two cultures Dutch and British , it has struck us in personal contacts as rather worldly. By this we mean that the company tailors and blends its parts across the world, socially and environmentally as well as economically.
It must find and extract oil without violating the rights of the people under whose territories the oil sits, and it has to refine and sell that oil in ways that are respectful of the local environment. That may seem clear enough today, but think about what companies like Shell went through to get there. Change and maintain order. We conclude from this that while global managers may spend a lot of time in the air, and not just literally, they become worldly when their feet are planted firmly on the ground of eclectic experience.
That means getting out of their offices, beyond the towers, to spend time where products are produced, customers served, and environments threatened. Of course, shifting from a global to a worldly perspective is not easy. Just change your concept of the world. Being there, especially among fellow managers from Indian companies, takes the non-Indian participants past the nice abstractions of economic, political, and social differences, down onto the streets, where these differences come alive.
That is not chaos on the streets of India, but another kind of logic. When you realize it, you have become that much more worldly.
He was struck by a symbol so familiar to him used in such a radically different context. We might say that the worldly mind-set puts the reflective one into context. In our view, to manage context is to manage on the edges, between the organization and the various worlds that surround it—cultures, industries, companies. Many of the most interesting things, say the biologists, happen on the Edges—on the interface between the woods and the field, the land and the sea.
There, living organisms encounter dynamic conditions that give rise to untold variety. Variety, perhaps, but there is tension as well. The flora of the meadows, for example, as they approach the woodlands, find themselves coping with increasingly unfavorable conditions: the sunlight they need might be lacking, and the soil no longer feels right. There is also the problem of competition with alien species of trees and shrubs. The Edges, in short, might abound with life, but each living form must fight for its own.
No wonder managers must be worldly. It need hardly be said that managing is about working with people—not just as bosses and subordinates but, more important, as colleagues and partners. Yet despite all the rhetoric about collaboration, in the West, at least, we often take a narrow view. If you picture yourself on top of a network, looking down on it, then you are out of it.
How can you possibly manage its relationships that way? It had been called Managing People. But they pointed out that a truly collaborative mind-set does not involve managing people so much as the relationships among people, in teams and projects as well as across divisions and alliances. Getting into a truly collaborative mind-set means getting beyond empowerment—a word implying that the people who know the work best must somehow receive the blessing of their managers to do it—and into commitment.
It also means getting away from the currently popular heroic style of managing and moving toward a more engaging style. Engaging managers listen more than they talk; they get out of their offices to see and feel more than they remain in them to sit and figure. By being worldly themselves, they foster collaboration among others. And they do less controlling, thus allowing other people to be in greater control of their own work. Rather, they help to establish the structures, conditions, and attitudes through which things get done.
And that requires a collaborative mind-set. We talk a great deal about networks these days, as well as teams, task forces, alliances, and knowledge work. That puts you out of it; how can you possibly manage its relationships that way? To be in a collaborative mind-set means to be inside, involved, to manage throughout. But it has a more profound meaning, too—to get management beyond managers, to distribute it so that responsibility flows naturally to whoever can take the initiative and pull things together.
Imagine your organization as a chariot pulled by wild horses. That may be easy for you to do! These horses represent the emotions, aspirations, and motives of all the people in the organization. Holding a steady course requires just as much skill as steering around to a new direction. Philosophers from Plato to Vivekenanda have used this metaphor to describe the need to harness emotional energy; it works well for management, too.
An action mind-set, especially at senior levels, is not about whipping the horses into a frenzy, careening hither and yon. It is about developing a sensitive awareness of the terrain and of what the team is capable of doing in it and thereby helping to set and maintain direction, coaxing everyone along.
Action, and especially change, need no introduction, of course. Everybody today understands them and the need for them. There is now an overwhelming emphasis on action at the expense of reflection.
The Red Cross Federation is unusual, not in experiencing this problem, but in being aware of it. In addition, people are obsessed with change these days.
We are told, relentlessly, that we live in times of great upheaval, that everything is changing, so we had better be in a constant state of alert. Change or else. Well, then, look around. What do you see that has changed recently? Your clothing? Your grandparents wore cotton and wool; they too buttoned buttons.
Your car? It uses the basic technology of the Model T. That technology is newer: the first commercial jet aircraft took flight in Your telephone? That changed—about ten years ago. Unless, of course, you are not using a cellular phone. Our point is not that nothing is changing. No, something is always changing. Right now it is information technology. We tend to focus on what is changing and conclude that everything is.
That is hardly a reflective mind-set, and it is detrimental as well to the action mind-set. We have to sober up to the reality that change is not pervasive, and that the phenomenon of change is not new.
If the reflective mind-set has to respect history, then the action mind-set could use a little humility. Change has no meaning without continuity. There is a name for everything changing all the time: anarchy. No one wants to live with that, certainly no organization that wishes to survive. Businesses are judged by the products they sell and the services they render, not the changes they make. So change cannot be managed without continuity. Accordingly, the trick in the action mind-set is to mobilize energy around those things that need changing, while being careful to maintain the rest.
And make no mistake about it, managing continuity is no easier than managing change. Remember those wild horses. The dominant view of managing change is Cartesian: Action results from deliberate strategies, carefully planned, that unfold as systematically managed sequences of decisions.
That is the analytic mind-set, not the action one. Monsanto went into genetically engineered agriculture with that approach, with its strategy all worked out in advance. With control of seed varieties and certain pesticides and fertilizers, it could bring an entire ecosystem to the market. And it had the research capacity and presence worldwide to do it. So it set about a series of brilliantly conceived acquisitions and effectively positioned the company to be the Microsoft of agribusiness.
Change, to be successful, cannot follow some mechanistic schedule of steps, of formulation followed by implementation. Action and reflection have to blend in a natural flow. And that has to include collaboration. We had better be reflectively collaborative, as well as analytically worldly, if we wish to accomplish effective change. It means remaining curious, alert, experimental.
Changing is a learning process, and so is maintaining course. Active members of an organization may resist change imposed on them because they understand that the change would be dysfunctional. Clearly, these five mind-sets do not represent hard-and-fast categories. We need distinct labels for them, but they obviously overlap, and they are more than mere words. Are they seeing the bigger picture? Can you give them any information to help widen their perspective?
If so, what change does this create to their point of view? We live in a professional world that goes fast and where people do not always take the time to step back.
When going fast, leaders often confuse their perspectives with reality and have difficulty truly understanding the point of view of others. A perspective is not right or wrong by default. It just is what it is: the point of view of a single person based on their life experiences and values, among other things. We each have one; sometimes we share it with others, and sometimes we do not. Our perspectives shape how we act or react in a situation.
What could be different in your leadership if you chose to be more generous in your interpretations of perspectives? What could be different in your personal leadership if you could better take, seek and coordinate perspectives? This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here. More From Forbes. Nov 12, , am EST.
Edit Story. Nov 17, , am EST. Steffan Surdek Forbes Councils Member. Opinions expressed are those of the author. You need to approach issues with a number of perspectives to be able to see the whole truth. While seeking input sounds easy enough, many organizations struggle to follow through.
Here are some of the barriers that often arise. Your perspective is valid and it matters, but it is limited by your own experience. Our egos would like us to believe that we have all the answers, or that our way is the best way, and we want to be perceived by others as competent. But there are other people to consider, including the people who your product or service will impact. Consider who the decision will impact, and set hierarchies aside — seek input from various levels, and actively take these alternative perspectives into account when finalizing a decision.
Would it be unusual to host a meeting where the intention is to share perspectives? Are there silos between teams and departments? Do leaders fail to give and ask for feedback? If so, you could be facing some deep cultural issues that need some serious adjustment. Explain the situation fully, and ask them what they think about it. The rewards of overcoming the barriers and creating more inclusion are worth it. Fierce provided training for the Iowa Department of Education.
The organization was looking to increase collaboration among administrators, principals, and instructional coaches. After the implementation of our team model, a greater sense of unity was created by ensuring everyone was heard. To read more on how they created a more inclusive culture, view the case study here. If you want to form an inclusive environment where other perspectives are welcomed, the focus should be on getting curious and expanding your thinking.
Start by identifying an issue in need of resolution and invite key influencers to the meeting. Before the meeting, provide them with the issue at hand, why it matters, the ideal outcome, and what help you would like from the group.
0コメント