“Take it as a given that Spirit is the most critical element of any organisation. With Spirit of the appropriate quantity, quality, and direction, almost anything is possible. Without Spirit, the simplest task becomes a monumental obstacle” – Harrison Owen.
It’s interesting seeing people on a Friday evening at the end of a working week. Everyone appears happy, relaxed, bubbly, and friendly. All have a ready smile on their faces as they exit the workplace and head to the pub for a drink and some good banter! You inevitably find yourself saying of another employee you probably spoke to for the first time:”He’s actually a very nice and interesting guy, why haven’t I spoken to him earlier?”
I bumped into John, a fellow work colleague in the office corridors last week Friday, and we began talking about this very same experience narrated above. I found myself asking the following questions: Why is that we appear to have more Soul outside the workplace and not whilst in it? What is it about the workplace that appears to make us drop our Soul outside it, thus becoming Soul-less whilst in it??
As a result of our conversations, John kindly gave me a chapter of a very interested book to read entitled “Leadership Plain and Simple” by Steve Radcliffe. Indeed, I recommended it to you, it’s a great book. Radcliffe points out, rather simply, that the reason why people do not feel themselves in the workplace; are not proactively committed to each other, and do not demonstrate empathy, is because we tend to use the wrong ‘energy’ source. This prevents us from being ourselves, and ensures we do not take time to recognise others – hence the comment: “He is actually a really nice interesting guy, why haven’t I spoken to him earlier?…”
Radcliffe says that the human person has 4 energies Continue reading
In the papers this week, it has been reported that the US Federal Housing Finance Agency has put the process in place to sue 17 banks over the subprime mortgage crisis – a key element which arguably lead to the global recession, a term we are all now very acquainted with. It made me think about the topic above linked to our recent themed discussions on the connection between diversity and business strategy. We all have our opinions and theories on what actually lead to the global economic crisis, but I think there is something more endemic that ought to be pointed out…
Let’s re-look at the Toyota case discussed in our last posting: On the 11th of February, 2010, the Economist in an article entitled: ‘Toyota – Accelerating into trouble’, reported the woes of Toyota showing the failure of the Japanese Board to spot a mechanical fault with the new Toyota Prius’ run-away acceleration and braking system. The fault lead to customer complaints and law suits that is reported to total approximately $5 billion, with Toyota having to recall approximately 8 million vehicles world wide. The overall market value loss totalled approximately $30 billion according to recent figures. In its overall evaluation of what might have gone wrong with Toyota, the Economist highlighted a cultural issue where leadership was based on “a rigid system of seniority and hierarchy” which prevented “new ideas” to questioning “the way things worked”.
The lessons learnt from the Toyota experience, I think, can be applied to assist understand what ‘suggestively’ facilitated the global economic crisis, the aim being to discover what ‘thought leadership’ actually means within this context. Indeed, what is core to both terms, ‘thought’ and ‘leadership’, and why is it important that to get leadership right?
Looked from an organisational viewpoint, thought is about thinking – creatively, leadership – a people-centred specific skill, is about the ability to provide inspiration, vision and direction – to all staff. The two terms are inextricably linked, one necessarily leading to the other, both facilitating innovation within the workplace resulting in a competitive and profitable business. Continue reading
I liken the above topic to the following story:
Two friends, Jack and Jill were on their way home from a party in the early hours of the morning. As they sat in their cab ride home Jack said to Jill, “Remind me to get some milk at ‘The 24hr Shop’ around the corner from home”. Jill replied: “We’re at least 30mins away from home, its 2am, will it be open?” Jack looked at her disbelievingly and responded: “What kind of a question is that Jill? It is called ‘The 24hr Shop’. Of course it will be open!!”
I have often wondered why many organisations remain hesitant at placing Diversity at the very heart of overall business strategy. Indeed, many organisations request a business case for diversity to further justify reasons for ‘engaging’ it as a business area. What this may point to, I suggest, is a gap in understanding. It is not business that creates diversity rather it is the very fact of diversity that creates business. Diversity is the coming together of different individuals from cross socio-cultural backgrounds and the different creative ideas they possess that leads to the development of new and fresh strategies needed to create, and keep businesses afloat so that they remain sustainable and competitive.
It is little wonder then that organizations that do not see the fundamental connection between diversity and overall business strategy commit a fundamental flaw in the logic of business strategy akin to the story above: Just as ‘The 24 hrs Shop’ implies within its title that it ought to be open for 24hrs, so too business practice ought to imply the practice of diversity as fundamental to its very existence. Indeed, a 24 hrs shop that is not in fact open for 24 hrs creates a logical absurdity in our minds regarding the choice of the name of the shop. In the same vein, I argue, businesses that do not have diversity as fundamental to business practice commit a logical absurdity in understanding business creation, development and continued sustainable operational success. Continue reading
Let’s begin with a clarification of terms: ‘Diversity agenda’? What does that mean? This article is not about pointing the ‘castigating finger’ at Test Publishers. Nor is it about attempting to juxtapose the ‘diversity agenda’ over-against the ‘agenda’ of Test Publishers as though they were in fact distinct agenda’s. If diversity is fundamentally about the effective management of all people, regardless of background, then the ‘diversity agenda’ alluded to in our topic above, is in fact at the very heart of Test Publishers agenda – whether this is understood or not. Continue reading