The intersection of thoughts: Attendee or Participant?

This week represented a unique intersection of experiences for me. I am on a speaking tour of east coast USA for three weeks and it is 5 AM on Sunday morning in Boston. No, not jetlag - my mind is wide awake and bursting with ideas. For the last four days I have been attending the International Leadership Association (ILA) conference and heard a wide range of ideas about what leadership should be and how leaders how leaders need to act for a sustainable future. The four keynotes were excellent and inspirational - holding the hearts and minds of the thousand attendees in their hands through their inspirational words. Each received a standing ovation demonstrating the level of appreciation for sharing their thoughts and experiences. Their key messages for me were the importance of spirit and compassion across cultures and beliefs from Karen Armstrong. Jeff Swartz explained why business performance and sustainable practices are allies not enemies. Rosabeth Moss Kanter pointedly and repeatedly asked “Leadership for what?” and explained that “Advanced leadership” requires capability, connections and cash (resources) with commitment and concern. The importance of adjusting your perspective and approach as our new challenges emerge was highlighted by Howard Gardner. All four strongly emphasised the importance of action rather than just talk and, quite appropriately, this was the overall theme of the conference, “Leadership 2.0: Time for Action”.

My other engagements as I migrate south with winter approaching are a series of workshops on leveraging collaborative knowledge to drive innovation and finally chairing/speaking at the Project Management World conference in Florida. This unique boundary spanning combination of activities going through my head (at the same time as designing a new course on internal research in organisations) has created my brain implosion and awareness at such an uncivilised hour. This is one of those moments when both right and left brain are actively generating new thoughts from this diverse mix of concepts and I felt compelled to share this with others. Attending sessions on “transcendent moments” in leadership, the influence of art in innovation and the significance of place for our sense of identity, all helped to fuel a powerful concoction of new ideas. The act of being open to ideas from outside one’s normal emotional and intellectual boundaries creates new emergent opportunities, which I now need to act on in order to harvest the fruits of to reap the potential benefits.


My last two Twitter posts (@Metaphorage using #ILA) for the conference were: “Have we just attended a conference or participated in a series of conversations that have developed our perspectives and matured our approach?” and “THE question is how many of the 1000 attendees will think, behave and ACT differently as a result of attending?” For me this is the essence and purpose of participating in such events – how do we use it to make a positive difference, for ourselves and others? As Theodore Zeldin stated “The kind of conversation I like is the one in which you are prepared to emerge a slightly different person”. What is the point of listening and providing a standing ovation, if we do not act on what we have learnt? It dishonours the speakers and limits our own performance. The wiser alternative is to ACT and further develop the ideas through ongoing experience, shared conversations and helping others to understand the value of what we have had the privilege of being exposed to. Engaging in this way will further mature our own capabilities and connections at the same time increase the capacity of our organisations to apply the ideas more widely. Ultimately, shared insights leading to more sustainable actions increases performance and relationships – Isn’t that what advanced leadership is about?


I know what I am going to do and the process has already begun. Other than sharing what I got from the experience though this blog (and two more drafted), I have created three new book titles with structures for wider sharing and added several maturations to my new course. When I return home, I am ready to participate in richer conversations with my mentee groups and further develop the mentor program and networks I facilitate. I also have a new bunch of challenging question to engage my students with in our interactive tutorials.


What have you done recently to put your advanced leadership into action? Will you continue to “just attend” events or will you participate in them and engage with others to create a difference through enhanced interactions?

Reflective Metaphor Model for Performance

I have been developing a new model to enhance performance through an action research program. It combines reflective practice, conversations that matter, behavioural metaphor and assessments of impacts on (largely intangible) performance outcomes. Application of the new model (illustrated) is highlighting the power of combining these concepts into an ongoing capability development cycle. By adapting the behaviours required at each stage of the cycle, the individual or team can align thinking to desired outcomes (such as impact on stakeholders and team performance). Recording and challenging their thoughts in a Reflective Impact Diary at each stage assists their development. For example, the structure reinforces enabling simulations before any planned interaction as well as recollection and challenge after the event to highlight key learnings. Learning is even stronger if the conversations and constructive challenges at all stages are done collaboratively.

This approach helps participants to preselect the behaviours are the most appropriate to achieve the desired outcomes of each conversation at each stage. This highlights the purpose of each conversation and matures participant’s thinking before the interaction, thereby improving the chances of success. Actively engaging with colleagues in Conversations that Matter at each stage of an adapted reflective practice cycle (Reflect, Plan, Do, Observe), enables richer learnings and stronger relationship development. Embedding Zoo Metaphor into this approach enriches the understanding of the behavioural interactions for both “Reflection in Action” and “Reflection on Action”. Combining reflective practice with conversation structure, behavioural analysis and metaphor is unique. Placing reflection at the beginning of the cycle to simulate creative conversations about possible outcomes is something that some people do some of the time. The suggestion of this model is to consciously do this in a structured way and enables the actors to be better prepared than the traditional approach of Plan, Do, Observe then Reflect. Separating pre-reflection (simulation before the event) from planning is a critical point. Simulation is about creating and testing a range of options using divergent thinking. Planning typically is more about selecting which options from a range should be used and in what order using convergent thinking. The behaviours to be displayed in each of these conversations are very different to optimise the process. If simulation and planning are done together it is probable useful emergent opportunities will not be developed (or perhaps even recognised).

The interdependence of these four approaches and the synergies they generate with each other makes them powerful. Although any of them can be used alone, together they become much more influential and contribute more to personal and team capability development. All four concepts help those using them to develop a deeper understanding of themselves and others and the interactions they can then have with them. My PhD research is assessing the impact this will have on performance (of individuals, teams and organisations). I am very interested to hear what you think (and also from people who wish to participate in the research).

Wiki Conversation Visualised

A group of my students studying knowledge based performance are each asked to research a separate topic and then write about it in a wiki. They insert links in the context of their own topic to the topics researched by other students to demonstrate the interdependence of each field. After this has been done they are asked to engage in a "Conversation that Matters" (see Jan 4 post) about the relationships between each of the topics. Whilst they have this conversation, the links each student highlights are marked on the board and additional key topics mentioned are added. The picture above is one output of this conversation (as are notes, mindmaps etc recorded by students). This image becomes a memory jogger for them at a later time which enables them to recall more details of the conversation.

More important are the outcomes of the conversation. Discussing the learning experience, the students feel they have a greater depth and scope of understanding and a richer perspective of how interrelated the "different fields" actually are. They believe the conversation is a great way to learn and provides a better sense of connection between topics. They also relate to each other better as they have shared knowledge and helped to deliver a higher quality of learning for all members of the group.

Collaborative learning techniques such as this enable everyone to contribute and a range of perspectives to be aired, opening up fresh insights for those who did the detailed study of the topic. Because there is no script, the flow of the conversation depends on when each person decides to contribute and this is influenced by the strength between their topic and the one being discussed in the moment. Typical complex interaction, if repeated a different sequence of events, but now having done this many times- similar patterns arise. As an aside it is interesting to note how many of these knowledge related themes come back to decision making.


The face to face conversation makes a useful addition to the wiki and the "verbal wiki image" is a good complement to both. Combining individual effort with collaborative development and the rich image makes the learning experience more significant for all members and much more useful than each participant researching all topics.

Behavioural Based Leadership

Leadership is behavioural - not a position!  The person at the top of an organisation may be a poor leader.  They may occupy the top job and command decisions, but this does not mean they are a GOOD leader.  A real leader is a person who has WILLING followers.  People want to help them because they are inspired by them and respect them as a person.

To become a leader of great standing requires a history of proven performance where your stewardship and demonstrated actions have served other well.  A leader of such standing shows a complex understanding of responsibility and can read other's behaviours to the point where they know what is best for them (even if their followers are not consciously aware of why).  They seem wise and have a mature set of behavioural capabilities that carry them well in times of crisis.

The model above lists 20 behaviour based capabilities that a great leader would be expected to have.  Perhaps not all well developed, but they would be aware of which need further development and what they need to do, experience or learn to achieve this improvement.  Capable behavioural leaders care about their own development as well as the development of those who follow them.  they have an adaptable style which shows visionary action orientation (Eagle), wise mentoring (Owl), collaborative engagement (Bee), the ability to take command if appropriate such as in a crisis (Lion) all supported by a philanthropic foundation.  The have an inherent ability to read the situation and quickly adjust their style to optimise the outcomes for "their people".  I have met a few such leaders, but they are few and far between.  Have you met any? 

Combining Metaphors to enhance effect and performance

The use of animals as metaphors for behaviours was covered in The Organizational Zoo as well as some other places.  Sports metaphors also have been widely used for business teams.  I have for some time played with the combination of the two to generate an understanding of the relationship between behaviour and a team role.

Belbin's research built an understanding of how different teams benefit from acknowledging that a diversity of roles is required to optimise outcomes.  My own interactions have been experimenting with the understanding of getting the right behaviours expressed in the right roles within teams.  Where people with particular behavioural preferences are put into a role not matched with those preferences, conflicts can occur as well as personal stress. 

However, if the roles are matched with the behavioural preferences a better balance of behaviours can generate a smoother flow of the work.  We still need diversity of behaviours and a set of roles appropriate for the task at hand, as each team needs "small agile players" and some "more robust players" to complete the different tasks.  In the basketball and football images shown the goal and required tasks are very different and this requires a different set of behaviours.  The level of aggression and the nature of the players are different, but each team has internal diversity to match the appropriate roles within that overall requirement.  If the basketball team is doing HR (less contact and more supportive) and the football team is in sales (more robust contact and aggression) I am comfortable.  However, if the football team represents my HR team and the Basketbally represents my sales force my business is suddenly not looking so good.

Combining the metaphors in this way provides a richer picture of what is required to be successful.  The overall context, the roles within the teams and the interactions between the players are all important.  People get the importance of this very quickly and have fun exploring the implications.  As with many metaphors, this quickly introduces a complex message in a simple and safe way which stimulates conversations between people around the impacts for them in their contexts. This is where the real value is generated.  People talking with each other about things that matter in a constructive way.

Get the right players in the right roles and you fly with the eagles, get misalignment of behaviours (animals) or have them in the wrong "positions" (roles) and success is far more difficult to achieve. I see this as being aligned with some of the recent writings of Dave Snowden on the interactions of crews.  Interested to know if readers can identify with this concept.  As always, I appreciate the fun images provided to me by my friend John Szabo (a good example of roles - I write and he draws, other way round would not be so good as I still struggle with stick people!)

The Park Ranger and the Leading Lion

A scenario where leading from behind can be effective.

Collaborative employee A
We are between a rock and a hard place, they will not change their plans and we cannot force them to. I honestly believe this training proposal is necessary for the program be successful, but they simply won’t resource it.


Collaborative employee A’s manager

I'm almost to the point of saying "to hell with it - let them rot", but I know that isn't the answer. If they persist then we need to be prepared to assist when the project fails - which costs more money than if we did it correctly the first time.


Collaborative employee A
I had been in this battle for a long time before I realised they would not allow us to help. There are only so many times you can come back and fight the same battle. Then I challenged myself: "So this means that you can't manage what is needed?" I really dislike the sound and implications of that question.


Supporting aggressive leaders with knowledge-based proposals is like being a ranger in a wildlife reserve responsible for caring for the lions. The lions consider only the immediate benefit to themselves and have little interest in longer term strategies. They are not able to understand that the ranger is there to support and guide them and without whom, the lion would not survive in the wider changing world. The ranger ensures sustenance and protection for them and their part of the world for rest of their life. However, this requires a little cooperation from the Lions. Unfortunately the lions are disinterested or incapable of understanding the value of the ranger’s advice and support. Even once it is implemented (assuming the lion does not try to eat them whilst doing so), they may not appreciate what it has done for them.

I ask myself why are we rangers take the risk of working for lions on the open grassland with little protection and kudos? Unfortunately, as the Global Financial Crisis has shown much of the business world is ruled by prides of primeval carnivores living day to day for their own benefit. The rangers are those of us trying to convert this into something more sustainable for the benefit of all. Unfortunately, lions have not asked for this and don’t appreciate why we are doing what we do. They are blissfully unaware of the wider impacts on the world and how this ultimately affects others as well as themselves.

We are bound to lose a few battles and win some others. Not perfect, but progress. We are in this environment because it needs us. Going back to the management question.… So how do we MANAGE the primeval carnivores so that they make the most of the situation they don't understand (or don’t want to understand)? Sometimes it is better to allow some small mistakes to be made and prepare to be there to support them though and to minimise the consequences when they happen. It is quite conceivable that under such circumstances, you will be chastised for “allowing” the mistake to happen, despite your best efforts to prevent them (and probably being mauled a few times).

The fact those “accusing” you of not doing enough to prevent the issue are the very animals that flatly and robustly rejected your earlier suggestions should not surprise you. They will not thank you for cleaning up, will criticise you for poor management in allowing it to happen, but in your heart you know it was the best outcome overall as it prevented the major disaster. Rangers are Owls and ultimately Owls can only influence over time to optimise outcomes, not force actions.

Conversations that Matter

Constructive conversations are the single most powerful way to engage people and make a difference for those you interact with. It is a pity that many people underestimate the power of the conversation. Everyone engages in conversations, but only a small percentage know how to create the right environment for "Conversations that Matter".

Effective conversations that matter follow a simple structure defined around understanding what you are trying to achieve and four fundamental focus areas: Outputs, Outcomes, Benefits and Beneficiaries.

For example, brainstorming, making a decision and authorising actions are all usually done through conversations, but in each of these cases, the focus of the conversation is different. This impacts on the type of information being exchanged and the people you need to involve. Certainly the outputs (tangibles such as documents, lists, decisions, communications) and outcomes (intangibles such as emotions, buy-in, creativity, identity and "enhanced performance") are very different. Brainstorming conversations that matter generate outputs such as lists and outcomes like creativity and potential (and perhaps even fun). A conversation that matters about succession planning and business continuity will generate outputs like a strategy, some decisions, agreed actions and hopefully some processes and pairing of mentors and mentees. However, the outcomes may be great (the strategy is good, the chemistry between the pairs positive and there is time to achieve the desired knowledge transfer) or bad (the strategy is impractical, matching poor, a lack of trust and sharing is ineffective). Too many projects that finish on time and on budget are a failure because we converse about the more easily measured tangible outputs rather than the far more difficult (and important) intangible outcomes. "We finished on time and on budget, but once the project team disappeared we had no idea how to operate the system effectively let alone optimise it". Very familiar words, regardless of what type of industry!

This is where conversations that matter generate their most significant impact. Managed well, the facilitator ensures everyone in each conversation understands the purpose of the conversation and what benefits will be delivered to which beneficiaries. Performance improvement results when the ultimate owners and users of the new idea, product or concept have been engaged in a series of conversations that matter at the appropriate moments throughout the initiative. This generates engagement, ensures understanding of how each interaction will impact their performance after it is finished and how the right knowledge is going to be transferred to them so they can take ownership. A good facilitator knows how to ensure each conversation is completed across each of the four focus areas so that everyone involved is fully aware of the impacts. When the leader creates the right environment for the conversations that matter to flow, it builds trust, effective relationships and greatly increases the likelyhood of achieving the desired outcomes. For more on Conversations that Matter refer to the book, Being a Successful Knowledge Leader or ask a Zoo Ambassador

By the way, metaphor is a great way to have fun with conversations that matter. Metaphor can be used to stimulate emergent ideas and get people thinking outside the box (if brainstorming or focus on consequences and risks if in a decision forum). All Organizational Zoos are happier places when people talk with each other with a positive purpose, rather than talk at each other with avengence.