In my own work I do see some things that make sense, even if simply common sense which as we know from so much of the work of Behavioral Economists, is certainly common but often not really sensible.  Still, I offer them for your consideration when thinking about the people you care to be connected to in building and sustaining more engaged relationships:

Is there agreement about what the relationship is about? Could be a card-playing buddy, a key strategic vendor or the love of your life. The key is agreement.

Are you both getting what you need from the relationship? Reciprocity is a key element to any relationship. Even in relationships where we are selfless, our need to be selfless needs to be met. So asking yourself what the other person need from the relationship and being clear about what you need is a solid way to level set the relationship at any stage in its development.

Does the relationship add value? Relationships that are sustainable bring some good news to those who participate in them. Except for the mascochistic or troubled, people gravitate towards the things that give them energy, satisfaction or things like additional income or prestige.

Finally, does the relationship fit with the rest of the person’s life. A chain-smoking club for marathoners or a Mixed Martial Arts Camp for Quaker kids are both non-starters. Frequently people cease to engage or never start because the step that it would take to be a part of what is being offered brings too much dissonance. Be clear for yourself and wth others that there is a good fit.

Keeping these things in mind might not solve all of your relational challenges. Still, a lift in the level and quality of engagement can occur and that is always good news.

This distinction, the emotional and the rational is not new, and certainly given what they are working on and what the promise/offer of “Switch” is, this distinction is a useful one.

What I would add is that books like these, and mental models like these, require faith, interpretation and the reflection. The first step is faith in the model. The second step is out interpretation of the model through applying it. The third step is reflecting on the experience of the application.  To support my claim one must accept that there in no way to evaluate a models outside of applying it and that applying a model is always a matter of interpreting it. So to further elaborate, the pattern is first, having faith that the model is worth using we, second, behave the ways(s) the model prescribes through its application/interpretation and third we evaluating what it has meant to have applied/interpreted this model be reflecting on our experience.

On Faith: If we believe neuroscience, being affiliated with Stanford, Duke and Harvard’s business schools, writing for Fast Company, having a prior book that was highly acclaimed or having a certain kind of look and feel for a book cover or our picture inside the dust jacket are indicators of expertise of the kind we trust, we have faith in Switch.

On Interpretation: If upon having this faith, we apply the principles and practices to our life, it requires us to make sense of them within our own cluster of models and so it requires that we interpret them; maybe in a literal way, maybe in a more nuanced way, however it is that we are applying them, it is through our rich accumulation of prior models, prior experiences, prior faith and their connection with our interpretation of this one, that our sensemaking gives us a frame for action.

On Reflection: Then, acting from our interpretation we take action and we gain experience. Then we reflect upon this (How did that work? Did this model turn our to be true, helpful, valid, smart, etc? What will I carry forward from this?) to re-make, revise or even re-inscribe what we found in model in the first place.

And then we begin the whole process again with additional elements. We may re-read a part of Switch. We made add the Heath Brother other book Made to Stick, another book or even something completely different from a TED talk, from INSEAD Knowledge or our favorite novel, movie or biography.

As is attributed to model of Saint Benedict the great monastic leader, “Always we begin again.”

One thing we often joked about was the various systems of esoteric knowledge, the most often cited, The Illuminati. And what better place to talk about esoteric knowledge than Business School?

I am thinking about Mark, esoteric systems and how we frame things as I prepare for a presentation next week about “models of collaboration.”

It has been my general experience that collaboration gets used some places and in other it is a way of saying… we will do thing my way and act like that is a shared vision…

Or it gets treated as some esoteric practice, one that requires initiation in to secret knowledge and practices.

From Wiki:

Rosabeth Moss Kanter talks about leaders who recognise that there are critical business relationships “that cannot be controlled by formal systems but require (a) dense web of interpersonal connections…”^[1]

Mark works with health care issues and government. “Dense web of relationships” makes sense there.

In my own work with individuals and organizations, the first step is identifying these; call them assets, call them stakeholders, I tend to think of them as those we share relationships with.

I am mindful this week of the religious observances of two of the primary religious traditions; Judaism and Christianity. The gathering together, for observances, meals and other aspects of the observances express this richness.

Dense web of relationships – who is in yours?

I asked him what changed. He told me about a simple process that he uses when starting his day on Monday. I asked his permission to share this and he said “Sure thing. Just don’t use my name. I do not want anyone to think I am some kind of management expert.”

Here’s what he does:

He starts his Monday out of the office at a local coffee shop. “I pick one where I won’t see anyone I know, where the music and the chatter is pleasant but not distracting and where I am not tempted to blow my diet. The key is to have a place to think and work, work and think.” Think and work, work and think; this is what Donald Schön called reflective practice.

He builds his week by NEVER allocating more that 1/3 of his days to meetings, except his quarterly senior leadership team meeting. “I have found when I spend 1/3 in meetings, 1/3 getting work done and 1/3 anticipating, researching, connecting – I do a much better job.” (If you wonder about this, take a look at Daniel Pink’s presentation on Motivation on TED.com)

He brings along a book or an article that will take 30 minutes plus/minus, that he reads carefully and makes notes looking for ONE thing that he can put into practice right away. The one he brought along today was Larry Hirschhorn’s The Primary Risk, a favorite of mine. Last week it was  an article on HR practices. Two weeks ago it was chapter from a Peter Drucker book. “The last thing I do, after planning, is feed my thinking by wrapping my brain around something good.” Good for him is something that stretches his thinking, gives him a practical tool or two and is recommended by someone he knows. “I often ask friends and colleagues, read anything great lately?”

As I listened to him, I imagined dozens of variations on this approach. The key is having a plan that enhances one’s practice. I especially like plans thoughtfully and consciously engage with one’s work and the people that are a part of it. It is my observation and experience that as work and life becomes more complex, reflective practice becomes the foundational skill.

Looking to the week ahead with some spaces for reflective practice brings more open space, more blue skies. And as friends who live with the six months of grey that is the Northwest remind me when I am there, A little blue sky here and there makes a big difference.

The more I talk about this, the more people want to talk about this. And by this, I mean whether things go wrong because of individual unethical choices or because the whole system is toxic or dysfunctional.

I have a fairly simple answer to this system vs. individual, the apple or the tree question. I will get to my answer in a bit. But first, let’s review the approach taken to the biggest story of our time, the current meltdown of the U.S. economy. In particular, let’s ask ourselves whose fault this mess is, who is to blame.

Read through stories about the crisis and you get the following individuals offered as culprits: Alan Greenspan, George Bush, the person who sold the loan, the person who bought it, Hank Paulson, John McCain, Barack Obama; you can add your own I am sure. Systems that get tagged for being corrupt or dysfunctional are the banking industry, the Fed, the Republicans, the Democrats, investors, sellers of loans, free marketers, foreigners. Again you can add others I am sure. Suffice it to say, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Still, blaming doesn’t get us beyond the questions of how we can make sense of what has happened and how can we change things so that we do not end up in this same mess again?

So what about apples and trees?

Start with thinking about the last apple you purchased. There was a time when the primary concern when buying an apple was whether it was bruised or not. You picked it up, looked at it, felt around a bit and then if it passed the test, you put it in your basket and continued along with your shopping.

These days you are less likely to find bruised apples and more likely to wonder about what chemicals and what genetic tweaks brought you the near-perfect specimen you are holding in your hand. In the first approach the apple’s acceptability is pretty straightforward, rotten or ripe that’s the gist of the purchase decision. In the second, you need a degree in bio-chem or agronomy to know what you are really buying. Tougher decision process, much more to consider.

What about the tree? I am a little out of my league here, still I would bet that – except for a few “Tree Whisperer” types – very few orchard managers would claim that they are simply allowing the tree to unfold its natural essence. Pesticide, fertilizer, genetic improvements and other plant technologies are involved; and because they are involved, outcomes and mutations which up that outstrip the ability of current technology to respond to them; stronger pests, climate shifts, new strains of disease. Again, things are more complicated. Again, a lot more to consider when making a choice.

Just to give this picture one more layer of texture, think about this: China supplies more than half of the world’s apples. China produces 15 percent more by quantity than it did three years ago, even factoring in a drop in production last year because of bad weather. China has brought the price of apples down.

China also does a less than stellar job on keeping poisonous things away from babies, with tainted milk being the latest example. This may not seem to be a direct answer to the apple vs. tree question, but in fact it is. The question now becomes, when discussing apples, what are we really talking about? Chemicals? Global economics? A tasty fruit? What?

So here’s what I answer when asked whether I think it is individuals or systems, apples or trees. I say that’s not really a very useful question anymore. Yes, it is an attention grabber, but it does not help us much when we are trying to sort out what to do when facing real problems or when we are trying to avoid having problems at all.

That question continues to treat moral dilemmas as things to understand and moral failures as things to be punished. It is the fulfillment of what has been identified as the triumph of analysis over solutions. This is not a knock on analysis, rather it is an acknowledgment that such analysis – when it comes to the individual vs. system question – is too often based on the application of established ways of thinking to what are for all intents and purposes completely new realities.

The conversation about safety and health issues of the individual apple shifts dramatically when you add plant life science and global economic influences. It is safe to say that three years out there will be new dynamics, technologies or economic shifts that will change the conversation even more. And so it is with the economy, global terrorism, being a good parent or giving one’s employer or clients fair value for the amount they pay us. Things have shifted and more often than not, the way we try to work on them has not.

So what then is one to do about doing the right thing, being a moral person, family, organization or nation?

My simple answer is this: Pay attention. Not to the latest Obama or McCain campaign rants. Not to Paris Hilton or Toby Keith. Not to brighter teeth or fresher breath. Pay attention not to what is being said but what is really going on.

That we are in a mess is irrefutable. What will happen next is still unclear. So in the mean time do as little to escape reality and as much as possible to engage it. Paying attention is no magic bullet, but then magic bullets got us into this mess in the first place.

And, dare I say again, pay attention, careful attention.

Social Media Identity: Personal vs. Professional

There may be less room for the distance depicted between the two identities as time goes on with the quality and quantity of information in the web world about us and our identity(ies).

Still, this is well worth a read.

It is a powerful statement about developing one’s assets and/or the assets of others, whatever they might be.