In this article the author describes how the Bayh-Dole act of 1980 started with the best of intentions but how over time the very thing it sort to do seems to have created the opposite effect.  And so that you can understand its original intent let me quote from the article: “By clearing away the thicket of conflicting rules and regulations at various federal agencies, it set out to encourage universities to patent and license results of federally financed research. For the first time, academicians were able to profit personally from the market transfer of their work. For the first time, academia could be powered as much by a profit motive as by the psychic reward of new discovery.”

The idea was that by opening the profit motif to academia we would stimulate more research and hence increase US competitiveness.  What have been the results of this premise? “…data gathered by the Association of University Technology Managers, a trade group, show that fewer than half of the 300 research universities actively seeking patents have managed to break even from technology transfer efforts. Instead, two-thirds of the revenue tracked by the association has gone to only 13 institutions.”

And what has been some of the unintended consequences?

“R. Stanley Williams, a nanotechnologist from Hewlett-Packard, testified to Congress in 2002 that much of the academic research to which H.P. has had difficulty gaining access could be licensed to several companies without eroding its intellectual property value.

 ’Large U.S.-based corporations have become so disheartened and disgusted with the situation, they are now working with foreign universities, especially the elite institutions in France, Russia and China, he said.”

“Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of campus commercialization is that research decisions are now being based on possible profits, not on the inherent value of knowledge. “Blue sky” research — the kind of basic experimentation that leads to a greater understanding of how the world works — has largely been set aside in favor of projects considered to have more immediate market potential.”

While there are those who would argue that profit is bad and the root of all evil I contend that profit is not only good but it is one of the most critical components of our society.  This is true not only for the for-profit business but for all organizations that seek to serve our society. 

What I do believe is that profit has lost its way in our current worldview.  Profit is, in its rightful place meant to be an indicator of the achievement of our purpose.  Put simply when we serve a community of customers and provide them value in the goods/services they return to us revenue.  To produce and deliver those goods/services we incur expenses.  Profit is simply then an indicator - an indicator of the relationship between the value provided to a community and the cost of providing it. 

The problem is not the desire to make a profit, for that is nothing more than the desire to give more than you receive.   The problem lies in the “profit motive.” 

When the motive is not about making a valuable contribution but about making a profit, then we have moved profit away from being an indicator to being the goal and this is what creates the many unintended consequences we are experiencing in our society today.

Norman Wolfe |President/CEO | Quantum Leaders, Inc

I loved his comment “Visions with purposes are particularly powerful as they induce clarity, consensus and commitment around their core purposes. [Emphasis is mine]. They raise both individual and organizational aspirations and encourage people to devote extraordinary amounts of energy and commitment to ensure that their organizations are ultra-competitive.”  What a wonderful description of the power of having the leadership tune into the Soulful Purpose of the organization, the purpose that lies at the very core of every organization. 

And then he moved onto the question of who would replace Jobs (evidently there was a mistaken release of Jobs demise in Bloomberg which was quickly retracted) that raises the can Jobs be replaced and what happens to Apple? And Idris offers some very worthy candidates.

And though he states “Succession planning isn’t regarded as a core organizational process, as important as M&A”, he seems to follow the same path that he has just criticized.  Don’t get me wrong I love Idris’s posts and think he brings forward many great ideas.  Only in this one he neglected to take up the gauntlet that he is so accurately laid down.  How does a Board properly address CEO Succession?

Most people, as did Idris, look for people with star talent, people who have accomplished much and are therefore viewed as great leaders.  And of course we all know that a great leader can lead anything, or so the conventional wisdom states.

But as I pointed out in my previous blog, this is clearly not the case.  A person who is great at a start-up is not great at leading a turnaround, and neither of them would be very good for a company experiencing growth.  And when it comes to Apple the very core of its being, the very essence of its Soulful Purpose is its ability to innovate; and not just any innovation, but innovation that creates enhanced and unique user experiences. 

What happens when you bring in a great leader who is not the right “great leader” for an organization” you end up with a Scully or a Fiorina. 

So look to the Soulful Purpose of an organization, look at the environment it is in and the one it will be in as time moves on.  And ask less about what someone has done and more about what type of leader attributes would be required for success.

Norman Wolfe |President/CEO | Quantum Leaders, Inc

“I’ve campaigned with him and seen him in large settings,” Ms. Kennedy said, “but to see the way he asked questions, listened, brought people together, with his leadership style and the kind of judgments he was making, really made me think he was even better than I thought he was.”

Now, I am not supporting Obama (or for that matter McCain) and this is not a political statement.  Rather it is a statement about what is fundamental in selecting a person who will lead any organization, whether it is a local community group, a large corporation or the United States of America.

A leader must be someone who can rally others towards the desire to achieve the desired outcome.  They must work within the existing culture of the “group” even if they need to change that very culture.  They must work with people who may be very different from them and hold radically different opinions as to what is the best desired outcome.  (It would be nice to think we can simply replace everyone on the bus with only those who are already aligned with the desired outcome and the path towards accomplishing it, but I have rarely seen where that luxury is ever available.)  And they must make difficult decisions about the proper allocation of available resources to maximize the probability of achieving the desired outcome. 

So what attributes of a leader would we want to select?  Well, the full answer to that is it depends.  So much about a leader’s ability to lead has a lot to do with how well their competencies line up with the needs of the organization.  The example I often use to make this point is that a company in a start up mode is very different than a company in growth mode and both are different than a company in a turnaround.  And the leaders that lead these different organizations require a different skill set for each, a situation that often means someone who might be a great turnaround leader is not likely to be a great start-up CEO.

Given the importance of style and leadership attributes, how do we normally pick our leaders?  Do we pick them based on these characteristics?  Not usually.  Usually we look to what they have accomplished and what they say they would like to accomplish.  This is as true for the way most CEOs are selected as much as it is for how we pick the president. 

It is comforting to think that if the person accomplished these things where they were before, they can accomplish the same things here.  But where they were before is not here.  The people are different, the circumstances are different the culture is different.  So past performance is not always a good indicator of future performance, unless the future has all the same characteristics of the past.  And promises made are also not indicative of whether they can deliver on those promises, especially given the environment they will have to operate in.

Since this is a presidential year, let’s look at some of our past presidents and see if e can learn anything from them.  We all know Bush (the current President) came to the White House with a very positive record in Texas.  Yet as president almost everyone agrees he is one of our worst.  Shouldn’t his performance in Texas have indicated that he would do well in the White House as well?

Historians, of whom I am not, look to Reagan and Carter to illustrate the importance of style.  Jimmy Carter was said to be a micro-manage and that is part of why he never could get anything done.  Ronald Reagan on the other hand was considered a master of the bringing out the best in his cabinet allowing him to make the most critical decisions. 

So what are we looking for as each of us cast our vote for the selection of the next leader of this country?  I for one want to know more about their leadership style, how they work with people, how they work with those who carry different points of view, how well the can bring people of different perspectives to transcend those perspective and find the common cause we can all rally behind.

Now why don’t the media, the political commentators and others provide with this type of insight.  I thank Carolyn Kennedy for sharing this perspective of Barak Obama.  Anyone out there want to share a similar perspective of John McCain.

Norman Wolfe |President/CEO | Quantum Leaders, Inc

In the movie, by a quirk of circumstances a single voter is going to decide the outcome of the national presidential race.  And as you can expect both campaigns are out to convince this voter to vote for their candidate.  What we witness is how each candidate starts taking positions opposite their core beliefs; the republican taking a position against business interests and declaring for a wildlife preserve, the democrat taking a stand as a pro-lifer.  You get the picture.

While it is an interesting caricature I just happened to read in the real life pages of the Wall street Journal how McCain is going to announce this Thursday, his Technology Policy.  The Journal comments that, while “technology policy has not been a front-burner issue for either Sen. McCain or his rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the issue “has become more critical for the McCain campaign in recent weeks, as perceptions grow…that Sen. McCain is less than tech-savvy.” 

And in another article the Journal reports that the campaign for the CEO vote is heating up. With increasing attention on the economy, the presidential candidates are trying to wrap themselves in business’s embrace by wooing some of the best-known chief executives.” Both Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barak Obama (D-Ill.) “have perceived weaknesses when it comes to managing the economy” and both candidates “believe endorsements — or support, if not an outright endorsement — from business leaders can help shore up their economic credentials.”

I cannot help but wonder are the candidates are taking positions so they can win or are the taking positions that truly represent who they are.

I know in my life and in my career there were many times I took positions so “I can win”.  Positions that I thought would make others like me more or to gain support of others for something I wanted.  I know how easy it is to rationalize why I am doing or saying a certain thing.  It was much harder to simply state what I believed especially in the face of potential criticism.

So where do you as a leader take a position that is not fully true to your core beliefs.  Do you find yourself rationalizing a certain decision because after all we have to make the numbers this quarter, even when in your heart you know that is not “fully” the right decision.    What about the time you decided on a simple compromise with the board, when your instincts were telling you it’s wrong.   Did you find an “acceptable” rationalization?

It’s not easy holding to you core beliefs or following you gut instincts.  On one had we are not always right and must remain open to the inputs of others.  On the other hand the human capacity to rationalize is so powerful it is hard to tell when we are and are not rationalizing.  Whether it is because we want to be accepted, we want to avoid conflict or we want the ability to be in the position we are in so we can make the difference we want to make. 

So like in the movie at some time we come face to face with ourselves and have to ask the question, Just how true to  our core values have we been.

Norman Wolfe |President/CEO | Quantum Leaders, Inc

Well more and more this is changing through the power of simulation.   Take for example the Macklin Institute’s program Xtreme Aging (http://www.mackliniginstitute.org/), a 1- 3 hour simulation program on what it feels like to age, something we are all destined to do.

Trainees create the effects of aging by wearing glasses that limit one’s vision, cotton in one’s ears and nose to limit the ability to hear and smell, rubber gloves with rubber bands around the knuckles to simulate arthritic joints and corn kernels in the shoes to simulate the effect of tissue and bone loss.  In these conditions they are asked to perform normal daily tasks; button and fold a shirt, shuffle a deck of playing cards, find a number in the phone book, fold a map, take the right  amount of money from a wallet and pay for groceries.

As one participant reports, “I fumble through the bills and change, dropping some onto the ground. Then, with my cataract like vision, I find that it’s hard to differentiate between bills. On my first try, I actually overpay the grocery store with a $100 bill.”

And yet how easily is it for us to get frustrated when we are behind an older person in line at the market.  What’s the matter with this person, they are so slow”, we think to ourselves.

So as a leader of an organization, how much time do you think about what is it like to be in the shoes of those you lead?  Do you know what it is like to take on an assignment and be under pressure to perform, when maybe the person is being stretched a little too far?  Do you know what feels to be in the shoes of your executive who has once again been passed over for a promotion and yet expected to still contribute to the cause as if nothing happened?

I could probably write for another 10 pages on all the experiences our employees face on a daily basis when we make any decision that impacts them, which is almost every decision we make.   And maybe it is exactly because every single decision we make impacts, in some fashion someone in our organization that we shut down our experience of compassion.  It can feel so overwhelming that if we let ourselves be concerned with the impact of every decision we make, we would be rendered useless.

Or so the prevailing thinking would have us believe.  But there is a way to be effective AND remain compassionate.  It is by recognizing that one can be compassionate and still make the decisions required for the well being of the organization and even for the individuals involved. 

Let me give you one example.  When I am stretching someone to the next level of their development I know it is going to create discomfort and pain for a period of time.  I have been able to hold this tension by remembering that sometimes it is the very pain another is feeling that helps them grow.  I know this because I can draw on my own personal experience of how I experienced pain during my own growth.  I have come to appreciate that it is the very act of doing that which is hard, awkward and uncomfortable that has always moved me to higher levels of performance.

And so, when I am setting higher expectations for another, when I am stretching them to grow, I draw on my own experience and I feel their pain and the joy that will emerge on the other side.  And from this place, almost naturally my communication changes and my challenge to them is delivered and received in a way that encourages and motivates the other.

Compassion comes from the Latin, com + pati, together + suffer.  Compassion is to suffer together, to share the experience of life’s struggle as we grow and develop, and to be compassionate is nothing more than to remember our own experience that another is going through.  Whether it is a person learning to live through the aging phase of life or one of our employees learning to expand their abilities, we too can know what it is like to walk a mile in their shoes.

Norman Wolfe | President/CEO | Quantum Leaders, Inc

Can anyone really continue to believe that we are completely and independently in control of our own destiny?    That we can unilaterally make decisions independent of what happens in other countries, or that the United States is the single superpower that can dictate to the rest of the world?

 And what about the business we lead?  How many times do you as a CEO or organizational leader attempt to make decisions independent of the rest of the “world ecosystem” within which you operate.  Whether that be the other departments within you organization, if you are a functional manager, or those entities you think of as you competitors if you are the CEO.

I remember working with a client leading them through a strategic planning session.  We had accurately assessed their strengths and weaknesses, we laid out the threats and opportunities in the marketplace and looked and the forces at p lay within their general environment.  And the strategy that was developed would launch them into becoming one of the market leaders.  It was exciting and doable.

I then split the management team into two groups, each representing one of their two major competitors.  I then assigned them the task of developing the strategic plan for the competition as if they were the leadership team of that company. 

They walked away with a whole new appreciation for how the marketplace was much more dynamic and organic.  Dynamic in the forces that could impact their success and organic in the way it was more inter-connected than they had realized.

 It is easy to think of our organization, or our country, as if we are the only ones changing and the rest of the world, or marketplace, will remain static.  Perhaps at one time, when the time dimension of change was measured in decades and the space dimension of connections and communications were measured in miles, we could operate that way.  Today however, we are reminded everyday that our world no longer fits this simple paradigm.  We as leaders must expand our horizon and integrate much more in our vision, our strategy, our positions and our daily decisions.  

Norman Wolfe

President/CEO

Quantum Leaders, Inc

But the CEO and I saw it differently; we saw it as a success.  The pilot uncovered much of the issues that get’s in the way of changing the old patterns of behaviors, those that brought success in the past, but no longer meet the needs of the future business.

So during this session I knew that each of the functional managers present had very good reasons for why they do what they do.  And they did not disappoint.  When presented with the review of findings, they defended their departments and pointed to other issues for the cause of the failure.   As I said their operational paradigms have served them in the past and brought them success.  Why should they not feel proud of it and defend it? 

After a break I set the stage for the second half of the session.  I opened with a reminder

If we do what we have always done – We will get the results we have always gotten

I then invited them to engage the rest of the session from the following three perspectives

1.       Don’t defend – CREATE!

2.       Make the organization #1 and my department #2

3.       What can I change in my organization that will help other departments become more successful

It turned out that by working from these perspectives the group came to an understanding and acceptance of the deeper dynamics of why they weren’t changing and moved easily to creative solutions that will now allow them to perform at the levels required for continued success. 

Norman Wolfe

President/CEO

 Of course we all had some useful suggestions which he appreciated.  I was moved to ask if he had any spiritual support, such as that of his priest, during such significant life challenges.   “I am a birth to grave Catholic”, he said, “but I guess I never thought of seeking support from my priest”.    Another member of the group chimed in, “gee now that I think of it I also wouldn’t think of going to my minister for help with life situations.”

Why not, someone asked, and a lively discussion around this topic ensued.  Because spiritual matters are of the spirit and life challenges are here on earth, was the general consensus.

I found this both interesting and fascinating and the more I reflected on it the more I realized that this is the way our society has evolved and especially business.  It is a true and literal separation of church and state, but even further, a separation of life from anything to do with the spiritual, whatever that may be.

 But is Spirit really something other than life?  I guess we first have to define what might be meant by Spirit and the spiritual.  Looking it up in Miriam Webster dictionary, the first definition that comes up is “an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms”.  That which lies beneath and through and that animates life is the way I like to say it.  And we use it all the time in our lives such as when we say the spirit of the organization or use the term esprit de corps. 

 So how can Spirit be separate from life?  The two are heavily intertwined with each other by the very definition of it.  Life and Spirit is the same thing.  Life is the manifest world we see and live in and Spirit is the unseen but ever present animating force that gives life to all we experience. So why would business, something that is very much part of life, be any less animated by Spirit than the rest of life and why would we consider it any less of a spiritual journey than itself is.

 Since, by definition Spirit animates all things it must also animate our organizations?  If it animates our organizations then as leaders of those organizations should we not learn to understand how it affects our organizations and how can it be used to enhance our performance?

Norman Wolfe

President/CEO

Quantum Leaders, Inc

There’s been a lot of discussion over recent years as to the notion that the nature of the U.S. economy is transforming (yet again) from that of being primarily a service economy into an experience economy. This theory was first laid out by Pine and Gilmore in their book, “The Experience Economy”, which put forth that business would create value around - and charge for - the experience or feelings surrounding the buying and/or use of their product. Examples they cite include Disney (where the consumer is purchasing the entertainment experience), Starbucks (where the previously commoditized coffee has been incorporated into an overall retail experience providing higher value) and Saturn (where the experience of buying a car has been made easier, and thus attracting a heretofore neglected demographic - female car purchasers).

The author’s theory that this is a fundamental, transformational change of  the U.S. economy is, in my opinion, a bit overstated. The vast majority of the exchange of products and services continues to be done under the traditional models where the charges fare based on the traditional evaluation of the tangible value of the goods provided or services performed.

However, I do believe that the “experience dimension” should be considered for it’s potential application across the entire value chain of a company’s business model. For example:

• Making the use of a product more efficient or entertaining (e.g., the Apple iPhone)
• Improving your operations and customer interfaces so as to become “easier to do business with” (e.g., Nordstrom’s)

What ways can you be improving the experience of doing business with your firm?

Let’s return to a couple of basic concepts of physics. First, energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only change from one form to another. Second, to change something into something else requires the application of energy for the transformation to occur.

All business are fundementally transforming one form into another, whether it is changing raw material into a specific product, or transforming clinets problems into solutions. And it requires the application of energy to facilitate the transformation process.

And where do you thing the majority of energy used for this transformation process comes from? Yes you guessed right, it comes from the people in the organization.

If we accept this premise then we can begin to see the major value of our internal processes. It is to act as an energy waveguide, to direct the flow of energy as frictionless as possible, towards the transformation process. Period!

Norman Wolfe
President/CEO
Quantum Leaders, Inc