INTENTION IS THE ENGINE THAT DRIVES EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

Dr. Christiaan Barnard pioneered open-heart surgery. Jack the Ripper, murdered prostitutes in the 1800s. They both had similar skills, and they used the same tool to do the same thing — cut people open with a scalpel.
 
What set them apart? Their intentions: One worked to save lives, the other to savagely end them.
 
Modern leaders often overlook the crucial process of clarifying and honing their intentions. When we work with leaders, we often get questions such as these: “How do I become a more effective leader? How can I acquire the skills? How do I learn the right steps — can you give me a list of techniques?” The subtext we hear is that to be powerful and effective, leaders need the latest “How To” manuals or the trendiest “8 Steps to Becoming a Great Leader.”
 
Developing leadership skills, techniques and processes without a crystal clear intention is like demanding fuel before the engine has been built. Reflecting deeply on our purpose ignites a personal transformation process.
 
Being clear about who we want to be requires deep humility, honest introspection and constant attention to creating self-awareness. It requires that we confront uncomfortable truths about ourselves. We have to shed our unconscious assumptions about who we are or what we want to accomplish. Meditation, objective self-assessment and a willingness to be open to the feedback of others are invaluable tools on the path to self-awareness and clarifying intentions.
 
Three ways to begin examining your leadership intentions:

1. Look in the mirror. Start by looking in the mirror and asking yourself “Who do I want to be in the world? What kind of leader do I want to be? How will I live that out?” Then turn the reflection inward.  What will “living your intentions” look like? What are you doing well now? What do you need to change? Write it down.
   


2. Make it public. Once your intentions are clear, start using your most powerful and accessible tool: Every day conversations. Authentic leadership requires that your intentions and behaviors align. Authentic conversations make your leadership intentions transparent.
   


3. Solicit feedback. Ask trusted friends and associates to give you feedback on how you behave, how you engage others and the ways they see you getting in your own way. If it doesn’t match your experience of yourself, the feedback is a gift that can help you figure out how to align your behavior with your intentions.

Webster defines intention as “a determination to act in a certain way,” which connects vision to behavior or actions. Determination is defined as “the act of deciding definitely and firmly.”
 
Taken together, the definitions provide a deeper understanding of what intention requires – definitely and firmly deciding to act in a certain way. Clarity is key.

THE CIVIL UNION BETWEEN CONFLICT AND CONVERSATION

We live in Arizona, and unless you’ve been vacationing in another galaxy, you know the rhetoric over the new law designed to crack down on illegal immigration is so hot you could fry an egg on it. Conversations, if they’re not avoided, tend to be incendiary.

We recently attended the showing of “9500 Liberty” directed by Coffee Party founder Annabel Park (a naturalized immigrant) and her boyfriend, Eric Byler. The film tells the story of Prince William County in Virginia, which passed a law similar to Arizona’s a few years ago. Soon after, a friend sent us an article published in Newsweek about the Coffee Party, recently organized by Park, along with this note:

"Thought you’d be interested in this article in light of your work. This passage, in particular, really hit me:

By the end of the event, some in the crowd had decided the movement, barely two months old at the time, needed a new leader. China Dickerson, a 26-year-old community organizer, said the Coffee Party wouldn't last "unless we get someone a little more powerful to head it." She wanted a rabble-rouser, "not someone that says we can all work together." Park seemed a little rattled after the meeting. "If they want to fire me, this may not be the group for them," she said later. "We don't want conflict and confrontation."

Seems to beg at least two questions relative to your work:

• Is it possible to "have a point of view" AND "extend goodwill" when it comes to political (and other) dialogue?


• What's wrong with "conflict and confrontation"? (Isn't there a place for it?)"

Her second question is easiest to answer from our point of view. Conflict and confrontation can be useful, absolutely. Lately, however, they seem to be the tools people choose first, instead of as a last resort.

According to Merriam-Webster, confront has two meanings: 1) to face, especially in challenge; and 2) to cause to meet: bring face to face. The first definition is more common, and in our view, it’s taken on a negative connotation. Although we have often used the word “confront” in our work, we focus on the second definition. We consider it synonymous with “raising difficult issues with goodwill,” which is a more precise, if less succinct, way of describing what we mean.

What struck me about the community profiled in "9500 Liberty" was the inability of people who lived there to manage conversations about their differences in a way that would have allowed them to find common ground. Unfortunately, we haven’t even seen much evidence that people want to find commonalities.  We see people reacting based on fear or other emotions rather on data and evidence. We see attempts to convince others that they're wrong, without acknowledging the complexities inherent in most issues. We see people trying to demonize the people who have different views, and shouting a little more loudly and more shrilly to drown others out. That lack of civility is demonstrated 24/7 in the media, where people make careers out of tearing others down, and that leaks into our everyday conversations with each other as well.

Even in these times marked by such divisiveness and incivility, I am absolutely convinced that people on either side of a divide have things in common. We can probably, for instance, agree that immigration is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. We likely agree that we want our views to be understood and respected. And even though our perspectives and approaches may be different, we all believe we have the best interests of our country at heart.

Managing differences and difficult issues through conversation is central to the work we do.  We don’t advocate avoiding conflict, we want people to address it effectively by supporting each other while confronting issues.

Supporting the person means extending goodwill, raising difficult issues in a compassionate way, and being a willing partner in resolving differences. Confronting the issue is a matter of neutrally stating the differences you see and letting go of the desire to “win” or get your way.

So back to the question my friend asks: Is it possible to "have a point of view" AND "extend goodwill" when it comes to political (and other) dialogue?
We absolutely believe it is. Here are 10 suggestions for navigating potentially difficult conversations we wrote for a workplace audience, but they are effective in any circumstance. Conflict and confrontation are natural and neutral — it is the ways we manage them through conversations and behavior that will make the difference between resolving and issue or escalating it.

PASSING THROUGH THE WALLS

I laughed out loud at the story Sylvia Boorstein shares in her book Pay Attention for Goodness’ Sake, which sprang from a talk on meditation that she gave to her grandson’s 6th grade class. One boy, Robert, was particularly fascinated by her assertion that, based on the tales of people she trusted, she believed that some people could walk through walls.

Weeks later, she got a fat envelope of thank-you notes from the class, including one from a curious boy named Robert. He wrote: “I’ve been thinking about the woman who could walk through walls. And I’ve been wondering: What if she got distracted in the middle of walking through the wall? Would she get stuck in the wall forever?”

Funny question, right? And Boorstein, of course, saw the vivid metaphor in his question. How easily do we get stuck in the wall? How often? How long do we choose to stay stuck?

When we’re stuck in the wall of past disappointments, we’re trapped by our feelings of helplessness and cynicism. Our ability to see the benefits of changing, learning and growing, are blocked by the drywall. A wall of fear keeps us trapped in resistance and anger. A wall of resentment keeps us stuck in blame and bitterness. In a lifetime, we likely  build enough walls for a downtown skyscraper.

“Only when I remember that the walls are the habits of my mind, that I build them and they will continue to exist as long as I insist that they are real, can I stop building [the walls],” Boorstein writes. “Then… I can see clearly. I see that the walls are empty and walk right through them.”

Walls also keep us from having authentic conversations. Our ability to understand each other’s points of view gets muffled and distorted by our inability to break free of our walls.

How can we get unstuck?

One way is to get clear on our intentions:  I want to have authentic conversations with others and create relationships I can believe in.
The next is to continually practice the behaviors that align with our intentions: I will tell the truth as I experience it with goodwill, and argue other’s points of view so we both know it’s been heard and understood. This will require me to work on my listening skills.

Walls can certainly be useful — in buildings. But in reality and metaphorically, nothing good comes from getting stuck in one.

LUKE'S LEADERSHIP LESSON

When my son, Zak, was 10, we were on a soccer road trip with his teammate Luke, and they were talking over a fast-food lunch. This is what I overheard, “Hey, did I tell you that I was elected as the fourth-grade class executive?” Luke said.
 
“Man, you’re lucky. We don’t have class executives.” Zak was highly impressed.
 
I couldn’t resist joining in. “Luke what exactly does the fourth-grade class executive do? Do you run the fourth grade?” I asked.
 
Luke shook his head. “I don’t really run the fourth grade. My job is to go to dances and other school events and make sure all the fourth graders are happy.”
 
I could do nothing but laugh at Luke’s job description of an executive. At age ten, Luke saw his job as being responsible for the happiness of the entire fourth grade.
 
That point of view continues as we grow up and enter the workplace. Managers, executives and other leaders are expected to keep employees happy, build their morale, and find ways to motivate them.
 
We call this “caretaking” — trying to manage or take responsibility for another’s emotional response to a situation — and it typically shows up in two types of workplace conversations:

• Conversations that attempt to reassure and protect


• Conversations that prescribe and direct

In the face of difficult circumstances, we often hear managers say “Don’t’ worry, just keep doing your job. We’ll figure it out, everything will be OK.” This may seem compassionate, but such reassurances are debilitating in two ways:

• It’s an attempt to impugn the other’s real experience.


• It let’s the other off the hook for participating in resolving the problems at hand.

Being told everything will be OK might make sense when you’re 10, but as a response to an adult facing a difficult situation at work or in life, it has little relevance. In the harshest of lights, such reassurances are a lie — no one has a crystal ball when it comes to the future.
 
The other difficult issue is that when managers and leaders tell others not to worry the reaction may be  “OK I’ll just do my job and hope for the best.” In difficult times, is this the attitude needed from folks at work? Or would it be more productive if they were engaged, literate and facing the difficulty with resolve, perseverance, and optimism?
 
What’s a Leader to do?
 
Embrace
Take the other person seriously. Show understanding that their experience – whatever it is – is real for them and legitimate to them. Encourage conversation about doubts, reservations, concerns and fears. Realize the other is an adult.
 
Empathize
Take their side, out loud. Articulate their position so they know you understand it. Validate their experience and talk about your own anxiousness, concerns and fears about the situation. Don’t have any? Talk about your denial!
 
Engage
Talk directly and openly about the details of the situation. Answer questions fully and directly – no spin – don’t soften the blow. Make visible the choices people have about how they see the future. Maintain goodwill in your demeanor and tone.
 
Viktor Frankl writes in The Doctor and the Soul, “But the human being who sits opposite me at this table decides in every case what he ‘is’ during the next second, what he will say to me or conceal from me.”
 
We all choose what we make of a given situation, recognizing this is fundamental to true leadership and management.
 
Remembering this helps me remember I can’t make all the 4^th graders happy.

DEEP CONVERSATIONS SIGNAL HAPPINESS

Researchers from University of Arizona, our (southern) backyard, have discovered that the kinds of conversations you have with others can be a good indication of whether you’re happy or not.

UA psychological scientists Matthias Mehl, Shannon Holleran, and Shelby Clark, along with Simine Vazire of Washington University in St. Louis, found that people who have meaningful conversations are more likely to be generally happy. Those who  reported high levels of well-being also tended to have conversations more frequently, according to the study that was published in the journal Psycological Science.

The conversations don’t have to be about existential angst, international affairs, or other weighty topics — but the researchers differentiated the substantial conversations that signal connection from those characterized by superficial small talk and light chatter that are found in many social situations, Mehl said.

How did they discover the link? They equipped 79 college students with recording devices, and then sifted through more than 23,000 conversation snippets that occurred  over four day’s time. The people who had scored happiest on psychological tests had twice as many meaningful conversations as the unhappiest.

While it doesn’t prove cause-and-effect, it’s an attention-getting connection that raises "the Interesting  possibility that happiness can be increased by facilitating substantive conversations," Mehl said.

We see it as one more indication of the importance of authentic conversations.