The Pillar Trends and Leadership

For the past two years I have been writing about the Pillar Trends — urbanization, climate change, the aging of the developed world, and the continued exponential increase in knowledge — and their potential to reshape some of our basic assumptions about how the world works. Most recently I have completed a white paper in collaboration with Kelvin Thomson, founder of the innovative leadership company MontaRosa.

Among our predictions are that leaders will become more system-centric and that the very meaning of the firm will change from self-contained entity to node in a network. In both cases, the importance of system success will grow relative to individual or firm success.  There will be new tensions to balance such as low cost vs. low impact. Each of the predictions is meant more as provocation for thought and conversation — we aren’t vain enough to think that our crystal ball is perfect.

I invite you to read the paper (link below) and share your thoughts. Agree or disagree, your voice is important to the conversation.

Pillar Trends RM final

New MontaRosa Video

I’m happy to have helped script and produce this teaser video for my client, MontaRosa, along with Eric Sodorff. It’s just a teaser to the innovative thinking on leadership and talent that is the stock-in-trade at MontaRosa. A white paper that explores the impact of the Pillar Trends on leadership will be up in a few days. In the meantime, give me a shout if you’d like a copy.

Decision Making and Hair Balls

The Pillar Trends about which I write — climate change, urbanization, aging demographics, and the exponential increase in knowledge — are the big hair ball challenges facing leaders and organizations. Decision making when confronted with them is difficult even for the best informed. To help remedy that, I offer a decision making framework I call the Five Rs: reap, risk, recruit, repeal, and regret.

You can read more about them in my latest post for MontaRosa.

The framework is designed to help bring the most critcal issues to the fore and ensure that the mid- and long-term implications are not overwhelmed by short-term considerations. I would appreciate your thoughts on this model. What do you think?

The Manuscript is Off to the Publisher

I’ve been working on the second edition of Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Collaboration to Build Collaboration with Lenny Marcus and Barry Dorn, both of the Harvard School of Public Health, for about 15 months. It feels great to have released the manuscript to Jossey-Bass.

I learned a lot about conflict resolution and negotiation as I edited those sections of the text — and a lot about the health care system through interviews that I conducted on the major trends that will shape health care over the next generation. These trends — system integration, empowered patients, technological advances, a more diverse workforce, and new definitions of trust — are at the heart of several chapters new to the second edition. I had the chance to speak with doctors, nurses, administrators, policy makers, and patients.

I end this first phase of the publication process encouraged as there are lots of smart people and organizations engaged in innovative initiatives to improve outcomes, lower costs, and rehumanize the patient experience. I am also discouraged because the so-called system is so resistant to change. There will be conflicts to be resolved and many, many things to negotiate — and hence the reason for updating this book.

The second edition should be out in 2011. It will be used primarily as a graduate school text. Next up: a book on leadership based on our work together at the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative.

Googling Performance

I moderated a webinar featuring Tom Davenport, Jeanne Harris, and Jeremy Shapiro for the International Institute of Analytics yesterday. It delved into the analytics of talent management and was based on an article in the October Harvard Business Review.

There were many interesting points but the one that struck me most was a revelation about the way that Google manages low performers. Unlike many companies, Google does not immediately blame the person whose performance is faltering. They believe that their hiring practices are sound (and they measure those practices through analytics) and that they bring in talented people. Because of this, they look first at whether the person has been matched with the right job and if the person is being well managed.

I found it refreshing that Google has both faith in its intake processes and the people it hires –and is honest enough to look at itself as well as the “failing” individual. Such an approach not should not only help Google improve its organization, build trust with its workforce, and minimize avoidable turnover costs. Others should learn from their example.