
Wanted to share an idea that has been rolling around in my head.
This might seem like common sense: the amount of talent in an individual (or group) is inversely proportional to the amount of preparation they need to create something excellent in their particular field of talent.
Simply put, the more natural ability you have to play the piano, the less you have to practice to get good.
Like I said; pretty common sense.
If this is logical, then the reverse would be equally true: the less talent you have (or a group has) at doing a particular activity, the more time it takes to present an acceptable product in that field.
Also fairly widely accepted. If you are bad at math, it takes you longer to do the homework.
As I parenthetically mentioned above, this fact can also be extrapolated to groups of people, and even further out to organizations as a whole.
This is where much of a company’s “culture” comes from. Where the natural proclivity of the leadership lies, therein you will find the ethos that trickles down and over time becomes engrained into the very fabric of that culture.
Apple, Inc. is innovative, tight-lipped, can be a bit bully-ish, and has a high appreciation for aesthetics — much like what I’ve heard about Mr. Steve Jobs.
The Virgin Group is daring, eclectic but a bit scattered, experimental, and adventurous — much like its founder, Sir Richard Branson.
These things are not coincidences.
The nonprofit I work with is, as a whole, almost unthinkably bad at two things (likely two heads of the same beast): organization and communication. These two things have plagued the staff and community for quite awhile now, and IMHO, even occasionally stymied our ability to welcome new people into the family.
Now, to be fair, it should be said that we are extremely good at being real, unscripted, highly adaptable, and organic.
But if the two facts I started with are true, why is it that we spend the LEAST amount of our time on organization and communication? Isn’t that just exacerbating our problem? The answer is that we are not intentionally making things worse, we are simply doing what comes naturally to us: as a group, we are very good at being chaotic and raw, so that’s what we do.
As you probably know, I am a huge proponent of strengths-based leadership, and focusing on what you are good at is definitely not a bad thing — unless you are ignoring your weaknesses. If our lack of organization and communication is truly keeping people from being engaged, then we have a problem.
Strengths-based philosophy does NOT mean ignoring weaknesses. It means managing them.
If we want to get better, it seems to me we have two possible responses.
1) We stop ignoring our weaknesses and spend more time “practicing.” Even if you don’t have much natural ability at playing the piano, there’s no question that if you practice 8 hours a day, you WILL get better… if only a little.
2) We stop ignoring our weaknesses and find somebody to do the things we’re bad at for us.
Also, what if your job REQUIRES you to play the piano, even if it’s just a little? Well, then if you want to keep doing your job, you better damn well practice.
I imagine that in our situation, we will need a mixture of these two solutions. There’s no way around it: leadership of any kind requires some amount of communication and organization. We simply can’t get around it. So, we better start practicing, and we better find some people to help us pick up the slack.
Strengths-based leadership requires leaders to have an accurate picture of reality; it demands that we stop ignoring what is common sense. Some of these truths may seem harsh, but maintaining an inaccurate, Pollyanna-ish paradigm won’t help anyone. It won’t help you, and it won’t help your followers.
Where is your organization weak? Where is your leadership weak? Do you need to spend some time with the piano or hire a session player? Maybe both?
//
the_DIALOGUE