An Open Letter to Steve Jobs

Much speculation again about your medical leave of absence. Apple’s stock prices were down 7 to 8% in Europe today. Tomorrow Apple is reporting financials. I suspect it will be very good news.

Someone asked me recently if I thought you were a good leader. I had no good answer. I have never worked with you nor do I even know you. Yet I do know of you.

Are you visionary and you have some pretty high standards of what you consider excellence. You are focused and can be fairly intense from what I understand. You are a leader to be sure. I say this not because of the position you hold in your company or even the market position of your company. No. Rather you are a leader, like the rest of us who have a sense of responsibility and struggle with balancing that in a paradoxical world. You understand profit, but don’t seem to be driven by it – at least not as much as some of those who follow you. You seem more interested in artistic expression and creativity than in earning a buck, but you recognize that earning a buck and protecting your investment is vital.

I can’t even pretend to know all the conflicting issues you face each and every day. I can only second guess you and play the arm-chair quarterback.

Steve, for my dollar, you are not Apple and Apple is not Steve Jobs. Apple is a part of who you are and clearly a product of your influence. You gave it a rebirth – a second chance. You made some very hard decisions and many people were unhappy. Throughout your time you have been true to your vision if not always communicative about what that looked like. But I do understand that. Sometimes the vision is fully developed and we only know what it isn’t. Vision is often an unfolding – a revelation that is built on discovery. I also get that you might have clearly held a vision that has not change or evolved. But one that was so far forward that it was out of the frame for the rest of us – out of our zone of proximal learning – that you may have incredible patience as the vision unfolds for the us.

I may not always agree with all that you say or do, but seriously – thank you for your vision and the products that have come from it (oh, and yes, for nurturing Pixar).

So Steve, whether you return to Apple or not, whether you live to be 56 or 106, it is my prayer that during your current medical leave of absence that you will take care of yourself and your family. Take time to fully heal your inner man. May you know and experience, not only during this absence, but throughout the reminder of your days: peace, joy, and unconditional love.

What is/isn’t Policy – a few thoughts

Taking a quick look at Wikipedia:  Policy is NOT law, but gives direction to what laws might be necessary to fulfill policy.  Policy by default orients to “What”

• It is our policy to be transparent.
• It is our policy to integrate geo-dispursed knowledge contributors
• It is our policy to have accessible and affordable health care for every citizen

Policy also answers the “why”

• It is our policy to be transparent because we want to build trust with our stakeholders.
• It is our policy to integrate geo-dispursed knowledge contributors because we can access the best and brightest without having to relocate them (etc)
• It is our policy to have accessible and affordable health care for every citizen because a healthy workforce produces more, is happier, etc…

A friend on Facebook posted:  ”I see the need for [policies] for an organization, yet see that they also have a tendency to stifle growth.”

My reply:
A couple of thoughts: Policy should help people be aware of mission/purpose/priorities; provide balance and equity of scarce resources; clarify roles; AND improve creativity and flexibility. Policies are purposed to be limited in scope and time – are therefore change-able or can be eliminated when no longer necessary. Can we think of policies as an external expression of what we want to see internally? enforcement of policy can actually limit the intended purpose of the policy….another thought comes to mind: how we administer policy matters.  just a few thoughts.

Policy intersects with other leadership competencies in my program of study.

1a:  Our worldview and philosophies will feed what we (1b) value (the policies we want to create) and how we (1b) believe we should administer policy (the rules we make).  Further our worldview influences what we believe the capacity of learning and change is of those we influence (1c).  We must communicate (2a) policy.  Even without a specific Mentor/coaching policy, mentoring and coaching (2b) become part of the informal adoption or resistance of any policy.  The way an individual or community perceives its responsibility (2c) influences the creation and implementation of policy.  (An example is Apple Inc.  They have environmental policies and social responsibility policies which have in part spawned the Supplier code of conduct and audit process.)  http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/

In the corporate world, policy and resource allocation, development (human and/or financial) (3a) is probably the most visible connection to policy.  Likewise when new policies are at times instituted to change Organizational behavior or culture (3b).  Even not when purposed to this regard, successful implementation often means the implementation of change processes (3d) and evaluation and assessment of said processes (3e).

The “why” of the policy also infers that there is a problem of some sort.  The answer to “why” is through research (4a/b/c).   My reading of Senge, Wheatley, Argis, and others about complex adaptive systems suggest that we may achieve our stated goals (i.e. intended consequences) but that there are always unintended consequences.  We may have to go back and re-evaluate the policy and/or its implementation.  This too is research. (that is the policy process is purposed to be used as “research”).

Who is responsible for what? and why?

Whose responsible for what?  and Why?

I can’t seem to shake this question.  As I begin reading “Responsibility in Context” a “gut level” take is that because we are social we have a responsibility one for another.  I don’t yet see where this is a foundation of society – good or bad.

A given person’s worldview would seem to dictate what they considered essential and valuable in context of their social environment.  Worldviews could hardly be considered infallible.  One may have a worldview of “top down”, where the most powerful “hero” is the leader.  This person may be able to exert the most force to get people to do what they want.  In their worldview, it may be that they believe they have the best idea of what their subjects need.  But if you depart from their prescribed order, you may be imprisoned, tortured, or killed.

Is the leader responsible for his/her followers?  What role to the followers play?  Again, these terms are defined by worldview.  Lets move away from “leader/follower” for a moment.  In more traditional corporate responsibility, we engage the corporate body in responsibility to the social/societal context in which it operates and functions.

Does responsibility rests in those with power and influence?  Or does responsibility rest with the individual regardless of power and influence?  Do we sue the automaker for accidents due to faulty manufacturing?  Does it make a difference if there was an unknown defect? or deliberate cover up?  Do we sue the automaker when we have an accident, because they built a car that goes faster than the legal limit?  we can apply these questions to physicians, corporations, individuals, governments, and so forth.  Who is responsible for what? and why?  What is the responsibility of a company to its employees?  the President to the citizens?  A nation to the world?  Can we question all basis of action? What is “good” or “bad”?  Who defines these?  And perhaps it is important to know how they come to be defined.

Across my computer screen this week, I have read about “selfishness”.  What is it?  Is it a virtue?  Does it make the world go ’round in peace and harmony?  There seem to be two definitions of “selfishness”.

The first and most common, seems to have come into existence between 1628 and 1640.  It centers around self-interest without regard for others.  Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying “Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs.” [Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene," 1976].
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfishness

The second declares “selfishness” a virtue.  Promoted widely by Ayn Rand, this type of selfishness has the best interest of self and others.  It is opposed to altruism (as self-sacrifice) towards others.  Where she views altruism as asking “Who benefits?” And making the morality of “right” being self-sacrifice of the giver.

All of this is based in her ideas of “objectivism” and reason.  This type of selfishness rejects the satisfaction of whims because they may actually be harmful to one’s self or others.  It rejects altruism because, to be morally “good”, one must harm themselves.  Indeed, one of Rand’s critisims of religion seems to be around the teachings of “altruism”, as giving to the hurt of one’s self.

My own interpretation of the teachings of Jesus, is that this type of altruism is not what he had in mind.  (Matthew 25 – parable of the 10 virgins; Matthew 22:39/ Mark 12:31/ Romans 13:8-10/ Galatians 5:14/ James 2:8 – love your neighbor as yourself).

I have not read Rand’s book.  I have only read through the links below.   There is much to appreciate about her approach. It seems that the main point is that every individual human being has objective needs.  The selfish human will reason that it is in their best (moral good) to take care of their “self” and the “self” of others.  In this I wonder how far off “selfishness” is from “Agape”.  I am still thinking.  Clearly, however, “reason” only goes so far.  There are so many interpretations of what is right and reasonable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth–406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

In her own life, she rejected all forms of organized religion and faith as “antithetical to reason”.  Her ideals influenced Alan Greenspan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan) among others.  Her ideals are embedded in the Republic Party of the United States.

Clearly in our current society there is a gap and breakdown of this type of “selfishness”.  Our economic collapse, both of 1929 and in the 2000s, show us that the typical “selfishness” is still at play.  Another breakdown is just how far we extend the ideal of Rand’s “Selfishness”, just as there is a break down in “Agape”.  Does Rand’s selfisishness extend to one’s family? Community?  Nation?  Those who hate and abuse one’s self?  who judges or arbitrates?

The question then becomes how do we balance society?  Are we living in an interconnected web of life? What is our responsibility towards others who view their responsibility differently?  Is the question one of selfishness? or is it possible that we might better be looking at another term?  I would suggest “Agape”.  Next, I would suggest that “Abuse” is the opposite of “Agape”.  Our responsibility is to “Agape” ourselves AND others – not to abuse ourselves or others.

Social Responsibility

In my M.Ed program I recall looking at Social Responsibility. The context was clearly corporate social responsibility. About as deep as I recall going was the role of higher educational institutions’ role in corporate social responsibility.

We can see the actions of corporations and the impact on the areas/locations in which they operate. Soda manufacturers using up water in remote places, or instituting opportunities for employees of one country to contribute to the benefit of the communities where the company has plants.

In other cases where a USA based electronics or garment manufacturer works with factories in poorer countries, but have agreements in place to protect workers from abuse, to pay locally appropriate wages, and that have built-in accountability.

To explore social responsibility for my PhD, it seems right to probe deeper. I found a new book “Responsibility in Context”. I will be reading through this and providing reactions, reflections, and questions as I process through the book.

Social responsibility seems to be rooted in some sort of morality/ethic. It seems to me that various cultures and contexts will interpret social responsibilities differently. Then a question that comes to my mind is this: who defines “social” and “responsibility”? Does one group define it for all? Is there an “absolute truth” to beings socially responsible? Is anyone exempt from responsibility? Who is responsible for what? When it comes to “leadership” how does “Social responsibility” fit into the competency of a “Leader”?

I am not sure I will find the answers to all of these questions. Though I will be thinking about these and more.

What is the purpose?

It seems to me that most often, in communication, we are trying to drive home a message from one person or group to another. It seems the purpose of which is to get that other person or group to do something they might otherwise not do. A keyword to describe this would be “persuasion”.

I have heard it said that leadership is the art of persuading others to do what you want them to do while believing it is what they want to do. This would seem to define “effective communication” very specifically as having persuaded the “other”. Personally I think this is a failed definition or at the very least “weak” in terms of “real/authentic” communication as tied to “Leadership”. Again, here is where worldview and philosophical foundations play into what one calls “effective”. While there could be times where this type of communication is essential, leadership that depends on this method does seem weak to me. This type of leadership takes an “us vs them” and the “enemy is out there” approach to human interaction. It misses the connectedness of all and misses that we can be our own worst enemy.

Bohm Dialogue
I was introduced to David Bohm through the writings of Peter Senge (Fifth Discipline) and Joe Jaworski (Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership). I have not purchased Bohm’s book, “Dialogue”, but have reviewed a number of websites, including Wikipedia. The editors of the Wikipedia entry encapsulate four principles of Bohm Dialogue:
1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation.
2. Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation.
3. As these individuals “suspend judgement” they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible.
4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals’ ideas in the conversation.

We can see glimpses of this in brainstorming sessions. The most satisfying brainstorming sessions in which I have participated are free from decisions and judgements; no one holds back their best contributions; and one thought often builds on another.

For Bohm (david-bohm.net/dialogue/) dialogue is sharing of thoughts. “Thought”, to his thinking is more than “mere” intellect or intellect’s output. Thought includes our fullness/wholeness: thoughts; emotions; feelings; etc. In this way we do not simply send a message. In dialogue we send ourselves, open and vulnerable. Additionally, Bohm’s dialogue has no apparent agenda (“Why Dialogue” paragraph 3).

Two paragraphs later, Bohm says that dialogue “is not concerned with deliberately trying to alter or change behavior nor to get the participants to move toward a predetermined goal.” I can think of various experiences of “dialogue” where there was a “Hidden” agenda behind the “dialogue” and other times a much closer experience to Bohm’s Dialogue. The experience of the hidden agenda is felt by participants and it changes participation (at least it did in me). I am left with wondering why we bothered to “do” the activity. When I questioned the person in charge once, than answer I got was basically, “I want every one to know they have been heard.” But the person’s mind was already made up and I am not sure he achieved that which he thought he had achieved. There were many discontented murmurings after the meeting.

On the other hand I have had very positive experiences in dialogue. While there was still an agenda of making a decision eventually, the decision surfaced through the contributions of all participants. The decision reflected the input and was seen in the outcomes.

I am reminded of Peter Jarvis’ thoughts on Human Learning (see my post of Sept 30, 2009). With this in mind, when we enter into Bohm Dialogue we bring all of our knowledge and learning as well as an openness to new learning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue
http://www.david-bohm.net/dialogue/dialogue_proposal.html

Communication tools

When it comes to the tools of communication I can’t help but think of “Methods” as well. Tools would be completely neutral to effective or ineffective communication. Methods – well, I’m still thinking about methods.

On first thought “face to face” is a method, not a tool. Where as any form of telephone is a tool. In any case I will brainstorm some of the tools and methods. I use/have used for communicating with others:

Telephone (cell; VoIP, etc)
video conference equipment (iChat, Skype, Polycom, etc)
Screen sharing (built-in to the OS [Mac/Windows], web-based,
convergence: GoToMeeting, breeze, etc
Letters, email, fax
Art: paintings of all sorts, photography, poetry, etc
Text (books, magazines, newspapers etc)

As I see these items in front of me, I begin to see how “letters” may be a method, where “Pen” and “paper” are tools. The Gutenberg press would be a tool where as a document using the press would be a method. Often I have heard it said to use the media as a tool to “get the word out”. But to be nit-picky this would be “Method” rather than “tool” in my worldview. The “Media” itself is multi-modal methods and tools: print; audio; visual; as well as the people and events created and used as “media events”. Thus we have multiple methods and tools being used with and sometimes without the impact for which they were purposed and designed.

I hope that makes sense. If not I trust you’ll post a comment below.

Communication: a basic definition

From the Sereno and Mortensen text comes this definition of communication:
“a process by which senders and receivers of messages interact in given social contexts.” (p 5)

It was in my M.Ed program that I really began to probe the concept of complex adaptive systems. The individual human is a complex adaptive system. When combining any number of humans complexity isn’t reduced.

Communication therefore cannot, by definition, ever be “simple”. “Communicative events involve the whole person… perceptions, learning, drives, emotions, attitudes, beliefs, values, decoding-encoding, meaning, messages, and social situations.” (Sereno p 4).

It would seem that with each added human, the complexity is increased. The “ladder of inference” is a play here as well.

A couple of communication games come to mind: There is one where you whisper a statement to a person and they, in turn whisper to their neighbor and so on around a circle, to where the person who started the process is the last to receive the message back. Another, is where everyone writes a statement on a piece of paper (each person has a stack of paper). Everyone then hands the stack of paper with the statement on top the person on their left who then draws a picture of the statement on the next sheet of paper in the stack, sending the statement to the bottom. Again, everyone hands their picture to the person on their left, who then writes a statement of the picture on the next blank sheet, sending the drawing to the bottom. This continues until each person receives the stack they started.

Besides being a hilariously fun experience, rarely is the message received at the end the same message sent.

Now when it comes to “message” the method(s) we choose to deliver will influence the reception of the message itself. This will be “customized” based on the individual receiver. While this is my own thinking and makes sense to me based on being complex adaptive systems (we humans), there are, of course, models (and models in models) that cover this: Ladder of Inference (Senge et al 1990) and the Transactional Model of Communication (Barnlund – as seen in Sereno text 1970 p 83-102), just to locate two in my limited time.

We have face to face methods which we generally trust the most. Not only do we have a verbal message we receive, by sight, nonverbal cues. I gave a sermon the other day and had a single message sent to the congregation. My single message, based on who I am and all my worldview, assumptions, etc was conveyed to all those present. I too, received immediate feedback with both verbal and nonverbal cues from the congregation.

Some did not seem to receive it well, while others were inspired and encouraged. Some walked out, some slept, others laughed heartily, some chuckled; some said loud “Amens”, some clapped. In all there was two-way communication. The sermon was recorded. It will be available as an audio file and a video/audio file. No longer will I receive immediate feedback.

Effective Communication

In my morning walk with Trixy (my wife) and Jordan (our dog), I was reflecting on basic communication: message sent; message received; and a feedback loop. That was the message I sent to Trixy and she received my words and gave me feedback – that of affirmation and examples; which I in turn affirmed in my own words back to her.

My Bachelor degree is in Mass Media with emphasis in Radio/TV Broadcasting and Radio/TV/Film production. I have with me as a resource “Foundations of Communication Theory” Sereno and Mortensen; 1970. I also recently picked up “International Communications Strategy” Cambie and Ooi; 2009.

Before cracking the books, I think I need to think a bit more about where I have been and where I am going.

As mentioned, I hold a BA in Mass Media. My M.Ed, while focused on Global Leadership looked at Communication. Now, for my PhD I am digging deeper still. Each experience has specific foci: Mass Media communication; Educational leadership/teaching communication; and now, I want to recapture the big picture and focus on my future: inter/cross cultural communication.

My career is steeped in communication. I critiqued scripts and needed to communicate (succinctly) pros and cons of a given script. As a grunt on sets or in the post production suite communication was essential to survival. Networking fails without positive communication. As a distribution (junior) executive I needed good relationships internal and external from my companies. As a writer/director/producer of TV programs to finish on time and close to budget requires good (effective) communication. To work as a freelancer and retain clients requires effective communication. To collaborate with faculty and administrators in building up an online program; to facilitate student learning outcomes, requires effective communication. Marriage has probably been the most demanding on my communication skills.

Communication builds relationships, relationships build networks. Thus the message communicated isn’t only what we want or need, but the essence of one’s self. Thus, “Leadership”, as defined as entering into relationship and having influence, communication must be assumed, for without effective communication one cannot have influence.

Now, the question is this: what is effective communication? The easy is answer is: that is what I am studying right now! Yet there remains for me a basic flexibility in the word “effective”. Even before digging into studies and texts “effective”, for me, isn’t a definitive list of “dos and don’ts”.

Learning and Human Development

Jarvis puts forward that there are four “types” of learning.  All of which are based on either “harmony” or a state of disharmony, or what he calls “disjuncture”.  

What are the influences on learning?  And are these influences bi-directional?

There are a number of pictures we can draw to depict the learning process.  Jarvis has two which are, in his view integrated (p 20 & 23).  The first is the working of the individual’s “inner” process.  The second is that process in context.

We must recognize that it is the person who learns.  This is in contrast to “learning organizations” or even “Learning societies”.  Noting that organizations and societies only change through people who are willing to learn (open to change and adaptation).

Like wise “Learning and human development” is related to other of my programs competencies:

Philosophical foundations – the basis of our beliefs shape our perspectives and either enhances or limits our capacity to learn; Our ethics at once influence and are influenced by our learning and development; ethics in turn relate directly to community and organizational structures and change (also bi-discretional); Mentoring is an active and engaged form of teaching and being a protege is being a student.  As I think about learning and development in association with our competencies and “leadership” – learning is bi-directionally apparent and intertwined/linked to each competency.

Give me some time and I will try to find examples…

Human Learning

Human Learning

I am now reading Peter Jarvis’ book “Human Learning”.  I am trying to remember why I chose this book, but I can’t remember.  I do know the reviews on Amazon.com stirred my interest as I reviewed dozens of titles.  I also picked up his companion book “Globalisation, Lifelong Learning and the Learning Society: Sociological Perspectives”.

Jarvis describes his growth and transformation over his 20+ years of research, practice, and reflection around “Learning”.  His definition has transformed along the way and he now defines “human learning” in this way:  ”the combination of processes whereby the whole person – body (genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, emotions, beliefs and senses): experiences a social situation, the perceived content of which is then transformed cognitively, emotively, or practically (or through any combination) and integrated into the person’s individual biography resulting in a changed (or more experienced) person.” (p 13)

I would like to sit down with him and pick his brain (so I hope that as I read the rest of the book I will feel like I have).  I like his move towards a comprehensive definition – it fits well with my personal “whole person” approach.