My Digital FootPrint

The pandemic changed us, our views, what we value and how we work.  We might not recognise all the changes and hang on in the hope of a return to something we loved, but we must make the best of it now.  We should be aware that the change has not only affected us but also our teams.  Whilst the Bruce Tuckman 1965 forming–storming–norming–performing model of group development is timeless. No one is likely to dissent that phases remain necessary and inevitable for a team to grow, face challenges, tackle problems, find solutions, plan work, and deliver results.  However, because we have changed, so has the utility of the tools we apply that move us along the journey from forming to performing.  Tools learnt and built in stable and certain times, have less applicability when we are faced with volatility and uncertainty.  It is the usefulness of tools we utilise that move us on the journey from forming to performing that has changed.  More books and articles on “teams” and “leadership” exi

Because when there is a leader, we look to them to lead, and they want us to follow their ideas. If you challenge the leader, you challenge leadership, and suddenly, you are not in or on the team. If you don’t support the leader, you are seen as a problem and are not a welcome member of the inner circle. If you bring your ideas, you are seen to be competitive to the system and not aligned.  If you don’t bring innovation, you are seen to lack leadership potential.  The leader sets the rules unless and until the leader loses authority or it is evident that their ideas don’t add up when a challenge to leadership and a demonstration of leadership skills becomes valid. We know this leadership model is broken and based on old command and control thinking inherited from models of war. We have lots of new leadership models, but leaders who depend on others for ideas, skills and talent, are they really the inspiration we are seeking?   Leadership is one of the biggest written-about topics, but

I participated in a fantastic talk in May 2022 on “Ideological Polarization and Extremism in the 21st Century” led by Jonathan Leader Maynard who is a Lecturer in International Politics at King's College London.  The purpose here focuses on a though I took from Jonathan's talk and his new book, “ Ideology and Mass Killing: The Radicalized Security Politics of Genocides and Deadly Atrocities ,” published by Oxford University Press.   When I started thinking about writing about Peak Paradox, it was driven by a desire to answer a core question I asked myself, individuals, boards and teams; “ what are we/ you optimising for? ” .  It has become my go-to question when I want to explore the complexity of decision making and team dynamics as the timeframe (tactical vs strategic) is determined by the person answering the question. Ultimately individuals in a team, which give the team its capabilities, are driven by different purposes and ideals, which means incentives work differently

Questions to help frame your own paradoxes Leadership must be able to recognise the paradoxes created as they decide on “ what they are optimising for. ” The last article described two different starting points for the Peak Paradox model; finding paradox and living with paradox .  It is evident that the compromises we elect to live with become more focused as we agreed or decide on what we are optimising for.  Such a focus has a benefit insomuch that the narrower and more articulate our view of optimised becomes, the more decisions can become aligned . However, the counter is that whilst a sharp focus and alignment will require less compromise for some, but it will equally increase the paradoxes/ compromises and tensions others will have to live with.  One team can be aligned to a vision but not necessarily on how to get there or live with the chosen “optimised” approach.  Stress is created by these differences and can create cracks and weaknesses in the team and culture. One visio

Source: Wendy Smith   https://www.learninginnovationslab.org/guest-faculty/ The importance of creating or seeing a paradox is that you can understand that the data and facts being presented to you can lead to the recommendation or conclusion being offered, but equally that the same data and facts can equally lead to a different conclusion.   Our problem is that we are not very good at finding flaws in our own arguments, if for no other reason than they support our incentives and beliefs. We tend to take it personally when someone attacks our logic, beliefs or method, even if they are searching for the paradox. Equally, the person you are about to question reacts just like you do.   Searching for the paradox allows you to see the jumps, assumptions and framing in the logic being presented, which lays bare how our thinking and decisions are being manipulated.  Often it turns out, others are blinded to see one conclusion, and as a leader and executive, your role is to explore and questi

This article explores why senior leaders need to develop skills to see past big noticeable loud noises and uncover small signals if we want to be part of a Board who makes the challenging judgment calls. Prof Brian Cox said during his opening keynote at Innotribe/ SIBOS 2019 , give or take a bit; “if you cannot find it in nature, it is not natural.”  This got me thinking about how choice is created and then have we make decisions and judgement.  How humans choose, decide and make complex judgement draws heavily on psychology and the behavioural sciences. Alongside judgement, I have a polymath interest in quantum mechanics, microbiome and consciousness. I was relaxing and watching “ His Dark Materials ” which it turns out was worth hanging in for and had finished Stuart Russels “Human Compatible” and Carlo Rovelli “The Order of Time”.  Then whilst watching this mini-series on the BBC about free will this article emerged.  Choice has a prediction that you have agency and can choose o