Blog

 

Are We Living in a Global Village?

By Larry Ott

I just finished reading an article by Luc De Keyser for Stratfor in which he questions the historian and technology futurist, Marshall McLuhan’s prediction of an inevitable “ global village”. Citing UCLA Professor Ramesh Srnivasan’s latest book, Whose Global Village? Rethinking How Technology Shapes Our World, De Keyser points out that instead of one great “global village” our new technologies are creating a series of independent “electronic villages”. He concludes: “Though the original vision of a digitally interconnected world placed a premium on globalization, it largely ignored the difficulties that harmoniously amalgamating an array of different cultures would present…” Indeed.

Behind the “global village” was McLuhan’s belief that each major change in communication technology brought about a major change in history. In his Gutenberg Galaxy, McLuhan attempted to demonstrate how the invention of the printing press had led to the Renaissance. In somewhat the same way, the invention of the computer, the cell phone and the internet at the end of the 20th Century have triggered major changes not only in the way we communicate but also how we govern, how we conduct business, and how we live our lives. From fishermen in India who use their cell phones to find better markets for their catch to ISIS terrorists who use the Internet to recruit new members from a worldwide audience, the results have been both positive and negative for society. In 1995, only one percent of the world’s population had access to the Internet. Today slightly less than half the world’s population has Internet access. The digital revolution is just beginning.

4/20/17

  

Collaborative Learning 

By Don Smith, Ed.D.

Collaborative learning is a method of teaching and learning, in which participants team together to explore a significant question, or create a meaningful project. A group of learners dialoguing about a formal presentation or working together over the Internet on a shared assignment are both examples of collaborative learning. In collaborative learning, participants work together in small groups on a structured activity. They are individually accountable for their work, and the work of the group as a whole is also assessed. Collaborative groups work face-to-face, and learn to work as a team. In small groups, participants can share strengths and also develop their weaker skills. They develop their interpersonal skills. They learn to deal with conflict. When collaborative groups are guided by clear objectives, learners engage in numerous activities, which improve their understanding of subjects explored.

In order to create an environment in which collaborative learning can take place, three things are necessary: (1) Learners need to feel safe, but also challenged; (2) Groups need to be small enough so that everyone can contribute; (3) The task on which learners work together, must be clearly defined.

Collaborative learning differs from traditional teaching approaches because learners work together, rather than compete with each other individually. Collaborative learning can take place any time learners work together. Collaborative learning takes place when participants work together in the same place, on a structured project, in a small group. Mixed-skill groups can be especially helpful to learners in developing their social abilities.

The skills needed to work together in groups are quite distinct from those used to succeed in working on one’s own. In a world where being a "team player" is often a key part of business success, collaborative learning is a very useful and relevant tool.

(For more detail on collaborative learning go to the “Management Corner” on our website.)
1/10/17

 

Lead Like A Missionary Not A Mercenary

By Don Smith, Ed.D.

Learning to lead today means practicing more like a missionary and less like a mercenary. Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner have co-authored more than a dozen award-winning leadership books, their most impactful one being The Leadership Challenge. They outline what I call the five basic “Liberating” leadership practices: Modeling the way - by clarifying our values; finding our voices; affirming our shared values; setting the example; and aligning our actions with shared values; Inspiring a shared vision - by envisioning the future; imagining exciting and ennobling possibilities; and enlisting coworkers in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations; Challenging the process - by searching for opportunities; seizing the initiative and looking for innovative ways to improve; experimenting and taking risks by constantly generating small wins, and learning from experience; Enabling others to act - by fostering collaboration; building trust and facilitating relationships; and strengthening co-workers by increasing their self-determination and developing their capabilities; and Encouraging the heart - by recognizing contributions; showing appreciation for co-workers’ efforts and achievements of excellence; and celebrating the values and victories by creating a spirit of community.

For Kouzes and Posner, learning to become the most effective leader we can be, requires us to be clear about what we value and also what we care enough about to be willing to make sacrifices. They state that it is imperative for the “Liberating” leader to do what is right, that it is working, that it is fair, that it is just, that it is safe, and that it is sustainable.

Suzanne Bates is a bestselling author, CEO, and internationally recognized expert in communicative leadership. She sums up her concepts of “Liberating” leadership, when she implies that “Liberating” leadership provides the qualities of a leader that engage, inspire, align, and move others to act.

To achieve these qualities, Bates’ “Liberating” leadership is based on three dimensions of presence (the ability to consistently and clearly articulate our value proposition, while influencing and connecting with others”): Character: the qualities of the “Liberating” leaders as persons, which are fundamental to their identity, and give others a reason to trust them; Substance: the cultivated qualities of “Liberating” leadership, which inspire commitment, inform action, and lead to above-and- beyond effort; Style: the overt, skill-based patterns of “Liberating” leadership that build motivation and shape and sustain effective performance.

She names the following as “Liberating” leaders, who have changed the world: Mikhail Gorbachev, at Reykjavik; Nelson Mandela, ending apartheid and healing the nation of South Africa; Mahatma Gandhi, fasting to end the riots between Muslims and Hindus in Calcutta; Aung San Suu Kyi, leading a non-violent, democratic revolution from a prison cell in Myanmar.

The purpose of my three blogs on “Liberating” leadership is to provide a new way of looking at our organizations and the world. “Liberating” leaders are bold, take action upon themselves, and fearlessly approach their leadership development, unleashing the power of their unique presence. “Liberating” leadership is a journey, and achieving the “presence” about which Bates talks is undertaken in the true spirit of learning and adventure. It rescues us from stagnating in the status quo, and thrusts us into the belief that our mission is to help and create other “Liberating” leaders, whose task it is to shape the world.

12/21/16

 

“LIBERATING” LEADERSHIP: DREAM MAKER
by Don Smith, Ed.D.

“If our actions inspire others to dream more, to learn more, to do more, and become more, then we are leaders.” (John Quincy Adams)

Quite possibly the most influential theorist and practitioner on “Liberating” leadership over the past 60 years has been Warren Bennis, an American scholar, organizational consultant and author, and a man widely regarded as a pioneer of the contemporary field of leadership studies. He passed away in 2014, but not before leaving us with a plethora of concepts, stories, and principles, related to our topic here.

His basic principles regarding “Liberating” leadership are:
• Leaders are made, not born.
• Leadership is like beauty.
• Leading means deeply affecting others.
• A leader is self-aware.
• Curiosity and risk-taking make a leader.
• A leader sees the big picture.
• The leader does right.

To apply these principles, Bennis was convinced that the “Liberating” leader had to possess:
• Humility: For Bennis, becoming a “Liberating” leader isn’t about making ourselves popular or famous. It’s about leading team members to become better than they are without us, and giving them the credit for their results. In other words, the “Liberating” leader is an equal member of the team, just one with the role of a leader.
• Humanism: “Liberating” leaders for Bennis can’t just see in black and white, because humanity operates within shades of grey. That’s why “Liberating” leaders develop a humanistic perspective, and make an effort to see where their team is coming from, because that’s how a “Liberating” leader can help guide the team members to where they need to go. That doesn’t mean all decisions, ethics, or moralities aren’t defined, but it does mean that many circumstances don’t need an equal level of definition.
• Democratic Performance: “Liberating” leaders, who incorporate the opinions and perspectives of their entire team, he proclaimed, would be more effective over the long term, from those who dictated circumstances.

Dr. Bennis was convinced that an egalitarian age - the age of today - requires a new style. Leaders can no longer crack the whip and expect people to jump through hoops. They need to perform more like mentors and coaches, than old-fashioned sergeant-majors. Top-down leadership not only risks alienating co-workers. It threatens to squander the organization’s most important resource: knowledge. He professes that there was no point in employing knowledge co-workers, if we are not going to allow them to use their knowledge creatively – “Liberally”.
He firmly believed that leadership is not a set of genetic characteristics, but rather the result of the lifelong process of self-discovery. That process enables “Liberating” leaders to become fully integrated human “becomings” (Carl Rogers’ expression), who know themselves and bring out the best in others.

One of Bennis’ most famous disciples was Bill George, currently professor of management practice at Harvard Business School since 2004. He is the former CEO of Medtronic, a medical device company headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. Their operational headquarters is in Fridley, Minnesota, where Medtronic is the world's largest stand-alone medical technology development company. Bennis was fond of saying that he had Medtronic “in his heart,” and then would describe how his defibrillator saved his life half a dozen times – just like me!

Our next champion of “Liberating” leadership is Marshall Goldsmith, a practical, insightful and inspirational thought leader and executive coach, whose mission is to help successful leaders get even better, by achieving positive, lasting change in behavior: for themselves, their people and their teams. Goldsmith is recognized by the American Management Association, as one of 50 greatest thinkers and business leaders, who have impacted the field of management and leadership over the past 80 years.

Goldsmith’s principles of “Liberating” leadership, can be summed up in his list of actions to be performed by one who practices:
1. Thinking Globally
2. Appreciating Diversity
3. Developing Technological Wisdom
4. Building Partnerships
5. Sharing Leadership
6. Creating a Shared Vision
7. Developing People
8. Achieving Personal Mastery
9. Encouraging Constructive Dialogue
10. Demonstrating Integrity
11. Leading Change
12. Anticipating Opportunities
13. Ensuring Customer Satisfaction
14. Maintaining a Collaborative Advantage
15. “Responsibilizing” People

Goldsmith teaches us that “Liberating” leaders must provide a favorable environment, in which people are encouraged to grow. Finally, “Liberating” leaders encourage co-workers to create their own dreams.

11/28/16

“LIBERATING” LEADERSHIP

By Don Smith, Ed.D.

Simon Western, currently professor of leadership and coaching studies at the Tavistock Institute in England offers researched and innovative new learning processes, which aim to transform the way “liberating” leadership impacts on both individuals and organizations. The Tavistock Institute works internationally to promote a “liberating” leadership culture in organizations and communities through developing individuals, groups and organizations in their capacity to think through actions to change and put into practice new insights, and in accompanying a process of change of quality of conversations and engagement.

Western describes four evolutionary models of leadership beginning in the early 1900s with what he calls “Controller” leadership, which, by the 1960s, had evolved into “Advisor” leadership, then in the mid-1980s into “Champion” leadership, and finally in the 2000s into “Liberating” leadership.

“Controller” leadership is characterized, according to Western, by science, rationality, control, efficiency, productivity, functionalism, and focus on task. It was believed that if leadership was results-driven, efficiency would be improved and measureable targets would be met, and waste would be reduced. Adam Smith, Sam Walton, and Ray Kroc were practitioners of “Controller” leadership.

“Advisor” leadership is characterized by building on relationships, increasing motivation, encouraging teamwork, and accepting the emotionality in our personal and professional lives. It was believed that if co-workers were motivated and supported, trust would become apparent and transparent, and personal growth would inspire co-workers to work smarter and harder. Friedrich Nietzsche, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher were all practitioners of “Controller” leadership.

“Champion” leadership is characterized by charisma, vision, organizational cultures, loyalty, and dynamic engagement. It was believed that “Champions” are effective at gaining attention, demanding loyalty and commitment from their co-workers, capable of winning their hearts as well as their minds, and seeing themselves as doing good in the world, and making a difference for others. Abraham Maslow, Steven Covey, and Nelson Mandela were practitioners of “Champion” leadership.

Ethics, networks, connectivity, globalization, interdependence, technology, and sustainability characterize “Liberating” leadership. “Liberating” leadership” refers to the application of an ecological worldview to organizations as well as social and political movements; describes a way of organizing, based on sustainable principles, many of them learned from nature; and embraces technology and human potential. It also recognizes the multitude of talent in society; it harnesses the creativity and adaptability in our technical, social, and natural eco-systems and accepts the task of “adapting and belonging”, co-creating organizations that are adaptive to change and that also belong to the social and natural world. Finally, “Liberating” leadership develops “webs of work” and then connects these to “webs of life”.

“Liberating” leaders, therefore, are people who are healthier, more resilient and broader thinkers with high cognitive function. They are more committed to their organizations and know better whom to trust and not to trust; they exhibit more effective learning behaviors and are more open and fully understand themselves and others’ viewpoints. “Liberating” leaders are more attentiveness to what’s going on around them and how to approach various activities, while increasing the quality of learning.
“Liberating” leaders can be found just about anywhere. They are people who say hello in the hallways, open doors, and smile in the morning; military personnel, serving on behalf of peace; artists, painters, singers, and dancers. They can be researchers, seeking cures and prevention of diseases or students studying to learn and enhance their capabilities. “Liberating” leaders are parents striving to care for their families, and grandparents who fill the hearts and minds of their children with stories of hope for a better life. They are politicians who care for our societies’ infrastructures as well as CEOs of major corporations who align complex social, political, environmental, and economic dynamics, in order to create a better world. Anita Roddick, Richard Branson, Bill Clinton, and Mikhail Gorbachev are considered practitioners of “Liberating” leadership.

11/18/2016

Leading a “Liberating Life” 

By Don Smith, Ed.D.

“Liberation” was a social, religious, political, and organizational movement of the Twentieth Century. According to Webster, the word “Liberation”, a noun, means “a movement seeking equal rights and status for a group”. But being a noun, the word signifies something static. Thus, I prefer the use of the gerund – a verb – “liberating”, which signifies something dynamic, something that is ongoing.

Over the course of my nearly 60 year professional career, I have experienced and participated in four different “liberating” movements.

During the 1960s, I practiced “Liberating” theology, as a missionary priest ministering in the Dominican Republic. “Liberation Theology” was a movement within the Catholic Church in Latin America in the 1950s and 60s. It arose principally as a moral reaction to the poverty and social injustice in the region, where we focused more on the community and “personal actualization in the here and now, rather than individual salvation in the future”. This is the period of my life when I was heavily influenced by such theorists and practitioners as Hans Kung, Camilo Torres, and Ivan Illich.

During the 1970s, I practiced “Liberating” education, (a preparation for living, for wondering why: instruction and experience in both technique and vision - the ultimate combination in education, where the three most important aspects of learning were history, imagination, and compassion; where simplicity was foremost, humane values transcended technological values, and, where democratic values overcome the desire for exclusivity), studying as a graduate student at the University of Toronto. This is the period of my life when I was heavily influenced by such theorists and practitioners as Paulo Freire, Maya Angelou, Herbert Marshall McLuhan, and Carl Rogers.

During the 1980s and 90s, I practiced “Liberating” management, (the movement of government services towards a more modern vision of the state, consistent with the use of business techniques and practices; a greater focus on customer or client need; and, use of and responsiveness to technological and societal advancements), working as a Civil Service manager for the Canadian Federal Government. This is the period of my life when I was heavily influenced by such theorists and practitioners as Peter Drucker, Tom Peters, Steven Covey, and Henry Mintzberg.

Now, during the first two decades of the 21st century, I am practicing “Liberating” leadership (the purpose of which is to liberate talent; energy, communication and trust as bywords; where personal accountability and respect for individual boundaries become vital; and where the placing of responsibility for action and decision-reaching upon the appropriate person becomes critical) performing as a global professional services consultant. In this latest period of my life I am heavily influenced by such theorists and practitioners as Warren Bennis, Marshall Goldsmith, James Kouzes and Barry Posner, Simon Western, Robert Anderson, and Suzanne Bates.

Over my next few columns I will take a more in depth look at “Liberating Leadership”.

10/19/2016

THE “MILL-XERS”

By Don Smith, Ed. D.

After facilitating leadership, management, and learning in the professional services area for nearly 50 years, I have come to the following conclusions: I am getting older (a young 81), and the majority of those engaged in my management workshops are getting younger (25-40).

Sociologists have identified the following groups entering and working in today’s labor force: SILENTS - born before 1946, are influenced by the experiences of their “great depression” parents. Most view work as an obligation, respect authority, and take rational approaches to work. BOOMERS - born between 1946 and 1965, the children of World War II veterans, are often stereotyped as extremely focused on work and desire recognition for their efforts. GEN Xers - born between 1966 and 1980, are economically conservative and generally embrace technology, diversity, and entrepreneurship. MILLENNIALS - born between 1981 and 2000, have grown up during the high tech revolution; they are usually optimistic and goal-oriented, enjoy collaboration and multi-tasking, are comfortable embracing emerging technologies, and seek meaningful work. GEN “Z” – born in the mid-1990s through today, are comfortable with new technologies and have grown up with full access to mobile communications.

Now, to what I call “MILL-XERS” (the combination of GEN X and MILLENNIALS). They are generally more computer literate than Boomers and are usually far more welcoming of diversity. Because of the recent economic downturn, they live with a healthy dose of skepticism. MILL-XERS have a short attention span and a strong environmental bent; they require that the organizations they join have missions in which they believe. They are comfortable as part of a team. They are not as materialistic as boomers, although many boomers started out as idealists. The MILL-XERS are the first true “technological” cohort. Nearly 100% own a computer 94% own a mobile device; 76% use Instant Messaging, and 81% have a Facebook account.

My wife and I have two MILL-Xer sons. They don’t watch the evening news with us; they get their instant information from Twitter and their news from Facebook. We like to go shopping at upscale malls; they use Amazon, shopping online, where they spend only minutes. My wife and I like to spend time talking on the phone; they text. It truly is a different world. I used to tell them, “When I was your age….”. This usually bores them since they can’t relate to my “cute” stories.

Despite our differences we all share some common attributes and goals. All of us share the desire for success, feeling valued, being respected, and working in a safe environment. For all of us, it is too late to ignore technology; we must “celebrate” it!

(For a further explanation of MILL-XERS and future management commentaries from Dr. Don Smith, go to ME&A’s “Management Corner” at mendezengland.com)

Nicolaus Copernicus and Steve Jobs: What Do They Have in Common?

By Don Smith, Ed. D.

They were both geniuses who lived nearly 500 years apart! Copernicus in Europe; Jobs in America. Both Copernicus and Jobs were “Men of the Renaissance”: the former of the Middle Ages; the later of the Modern Era. Copernicus challenged the deep assumptions upon which all astronomy was based – then overturned them. Copernicus’ 1543 book, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, was banned by the Roman Catholic Church for over 200 years. His intellectual heir, Galileo, was tried by the Inquisition for promoting Copernicus’ views, found vehemently suspect of heresy, and forced to recant, spending the rest of his life under house arrest. The impact of Copernicus’ work extended far beyond the time horizon of the Renaissance and far beyond astronomy. He laid a fresh foundation upon which all modern physics was built.

Smart, but directionless, Jobs experimented with different pursuits before starting Apple Computer with Steve Wozniak in 1976. Apple’s revolutionary products, which include the iPod, iPhone and iPad, are now seen as dictating the evolution of modern technology, with Jobs being fired from the company in 1985, then returning victoriously as CEO, more than a decade later.

Just as Steve Jobs instigated Apple’s success in the 1970s, he is credited with revitalizing the company in the 1990s. With a new management team, altered stock options, and a self-imposed annual salary of $1 a year, Jobs put Apple back on track. His ingenious products (like the iMac), effective branding, and stylish designs caught the attention of consumers once again.

Jobs, as the Modern Era “Renaissance Man”, has taught us four key lessons: CRAFT ABOVE ALL - under Jobs, Apple became famous for a level of craft; EMPATHY -an intimate connection with the feelings of the customer; FOCUS - in order to perform well those things that we decide to do, Jobs believed that we must eliminate all of the unimportant challenges; FRIENDLINESS - Apple has made cutting-edge devices user-friendly: a design strategy specifically intended to appeal to anyone overwhelmed by the complexities and capabilities of a computer.

The Difficulty in Measuring Performance in Economic Development

By Thomas England, President, ME&A

Coming up with economic statistics is fairly easy and commonplace even in developing countries challenged to drive these metrics. But where the “rubber meets the road,” that is, economic development in regions and localities, political leaders, including mayors, governors and national leaders, economic development organizations (EDOs) and even international donor agencies, are anxious to prove that their policies, initiatives and projects are producing results—and are indeed providing a good return on investment. Invariably, the performance metrics most relied upon are numbers of jobs created and investment related to business attraction.

In the recent article, “ Performance measurement in economic development – even the standard can’t live up to the standard,” published by the Brookings Institution and written by Ryan Donahue and Brad McDearman, the point is made that these performance metrics are often not only seriously flawed, but tend to prevent certain strategies from being adopted that can be more effective. They are not adopted because they do not fit well with these traditional measurements of performance.

For example, one of the most used measures of performance is the number of jobs created. However, governments and EDOs typically exaggerate their own responsibilities for outcomes. Another flaw is to directly link financial assistance to firms with that firm’s actions to create jobs, which can be driven by multiple factors. A third is the tendency to overstate how accurately the “jobs created” actually measures impact. Infrequently, the same agencies will not mention the number of job losses in the meantime. Finally, the “job creation” number is much easier to use when a new firm locates to a local area, than when important policies and programs that assist existing companies to become more competitive are adopted. We will explore some alternatives to these traditional performance measures in subsequent blogs.

What is A MENCH?

By Donald Smith Ed.D

ME&A VP for Learning Technologies

While facilitating a leadership program for managers of the Dominican Civil Aviation Department in the Dominican Republic a few years ago, my co-facilitator made the following statement to me, after one of our lively and interactive change leadership presentations: “Don, you really are quite a “Mensch!” At the time, I really did not fully understand the meaning of the term, but now, I do.

The word “Mensch”, in Yiddish, is “someone to admire and emulate, someone of noble character. The key to being ‘a real Mensch’ is nothing less than character, rectitude, dignity, a sense of what is right, responsible, decorous.” (Wikipedia) The term is used as a high compliment, expressing the rarity and value of that individual’s qualities. Obviously, I was truly flattered, but is this not also the apt description of what a professional services’ consultant should be?

In my current consulting work, I have taken the word and given it a slightly new spelling and meaning. For me, the term MENCH (a combination of MENtor and coaCH) is someone who possesses the characteristics outlined above, and one who builds relationships with his or her partner organizations, and enhances company productivity with his or her individual clients.
Although a handful of our client organizations and partners have embraced the importance of mentoring and coaching, these two strategies are still not practiced in many of them. Maybe this has to do with the way we define leadership today. A leader is a learner, a teacher, a coach, and a mentor, especially because of the challenges facing our partner organizations.

And what is it that demands “MENCHing” in today’s client and partner organizations?
• Talent wars in the global organizational environment.
• The increase of hyper-competition.
• The ongoing demands for rising client and partner expectations.
• The impact of technology and the digital economy.
• The existing gap between client and partner performance demands and capability.

Indeed, “MENCHing” is part of the consultant’s role, which has growth and productivity as its principal outcomes.

(For a further explanation of MENCHing and future management commentaries from Don Smith, go to ME&A’s “Management Corner” at mendezengland.com)

Bottle or Tap?

By: Patrick Sullivan

Growing up in the Washington DC area one of the things that was the constant butt of many jokes was the quality of the District’s water supply. There were always complaints that it smelled odd and jokes about how there were “safe” levels of different chemicals such as lead, mercury, arsenic and even rocket fuel in it. There were even those that refused to drink DC’s water preferring bottled or filtered at the least.

Clean water is something that we take for granted. At the end of the day, DC’s water is not only perfectly fine and safe to drink, it is far better than the water that billions of people around the world have access to. I first truly realized this in South Africa when staying with a friend in the township of Winterveld outside of Pretoria. There, having running water in your house is a luxury that few can afford. Many people access clean water through community wells scattered around the township, if they have access to it at all.

While we joked and complained about a slight smell in our water millions and millions of people must drink, cook with and utilize dirty water for survival leading to the spread of water borne disease or wait for hours in queues at wells to avoid illnesses that have literally become part of history for us. Even in more developed countries, access to clean water in rural areas can be difficult as governments lack the resources to extend infrastructure out to the country side.

It is often easy to forget this as we live in a part of the world where we no longer fear waterborne illnesses such as cholera, dysentery or typhoid, however, an estimated 1.8 million people die of waterborne diseases every year according to the World Health Organization. The good news is that we can continue to fight these diseases by increasing people's access to clean drinking water and better sanitation something that ME&A works to do around the world. So next time you turn your nose up at tap water in a restaurant or complain that your tap water smells a little funny, just remember that it won't kill you to drink it.

CHANGE IS THE NEW REALITY

By: Don Smith, ME&A Vice President

Global Learning and Performance Technologies and Operations

Two British Leadership theorists and practitioners, Esther Cameron and Mike Green in their text “Making Sense of Change Management” (2012), conclude their book by stating that political, economic, and climate instability are all familiar elements of the global context in which we are now working. The puzzle is that although we know that very little is predictable and stable in today’s world, many of the tools and techniques available for leading and managing, have been devised to fit an “old” rational, mechanical world view. This assumes that difficult challenges can be reduced and understood, rational answers found, and long-term, plans made: Leaders are heroes with an extra dose of this masterful rationality.

Our working lives, personal lives, and communities are also more fragmented and less predictable than they used to be:

• Many of our careers now encompass several different sub-careers;
• Families are more widely spread geographically; and,
• Communities have less cohesion around a local geographic focus.

Some organizations are responding to these challenges with totally new organizational forms, which increase their capability to adapt and innovate, create new forms of business partnerships and to shift lifestyles, while others struggle to respond at all.

Many are calling for a new world view in which we become more open to uncertainty and confusion, and more trusting of emergent processes. This means letting go of grandiose plans which no longer seem valid, finding new ways of responding to the here and now, and providing Leadership, which enables this. As individuals, many of us have far less stability in our lives than our parents had, and we are having to find ways of developing new skills to manage ourselves, and tell our stories in this uncertain and turbulent world, so that we can lead fulfilling and ultimately satisfying lives.

          It is the link between the personal, interpersonal, organizational, and societal impact of change leadership development that matters most today – with the developer’s aim of creating learning conditions and activities which generate “leadershipful” organizations and societies.

          Role modelling and building a culture of continuous learning, according to Paul Aiken and Malcolm Higgs (2010), is the sine qua non of change and leadership development, as this has major implications for how change is responded to, and how success and failure are treated for all to witness. They conclude their book by outlining a list of business do’s, in order to achieve this:

1. Lead through own activity in learning (to lead and implement change).
2. Model by sharing that learning.
3. Recognize colleagues for the quality of reporting back to their peers, work teams and supervisors on conferences, seminars, learning activities.
4. Support exchange of knowledge across the organization.
5. Be prepared to take risks with new ways of learning.
6. Ensure that the core learning and development needs are identified in and business planning.
7. Ensure that appropriate funding and resources for learning and development are based on building capability for now and the future.
8. Actively support the inclusion of learning and development issues in organizational decision reaching.
9. Request learning and development, in order to inform business decision, including data on level, nature, and business impact of investment.
10. Ensure “reward” systems are in place for efforts by colleagues, in order to encourage learning in the workplace.

To summarize, Change Leadership is one of the special techniques which enable today’s colleagues to lead and manage teams, stakeholders, and other participants. Change Leadership is a process by which a colleague can direct, guide, and influence the behavior and work of the team towards accomplishing the company’s objectives. It is therefore, essential that the colleague understand the characteristics and features of Change Leadership, in order to be able to apply the process effectively.

Energy in Germany: Another Perspective

By: Larry Ott

ME&A Senior Associate

I am currently in Frankfurt, Germany where I have been visiting for the last few weeks. It is interesting to see how different cultures look at and treat the use of energy. Bicycles, for example, are king here. You see people of all ages riding them morning, noon and night, to work, to school, to the store. Often children are tagging behind on seats or in covered carts, down specially designated bicycle lanes on sidewalks and roadways. At intersections, bicycles have the right of way over motorized vehicles.

Public transportation is extremely efficient and universal. You really don’t need a car to go just about anywhere in the city or its suburbs. People of all ages and classes use the U-bahn (metro), trolleys, busses and trains all day and most of the night, even on weekends and holidays.

Surprisingly for us from the States, there is practically no air conditioning except for a few stores. When it is hot, which is not that often, people just live with it, or turn on a fan. Cars are generally smaller even if they are BMWs or Mercedes, and the oversized SUV is a rarity. Efficiency becomes especially important when gas costs more than $6 per gallon.

As I walk or ride through residential neighborhoods, I see numerous houses and businesses with solar voltaic arrays on their roofs. The buildings themselves are constructed with two-foot thick walls and triple glazed windows and doors. This helps to keep them cool in summer and warm in winter.

A drive through the countryside reveals huge flocks of windmills towering over the hills producing much of the country’s electricity. These massive wind turbines seem to be everywhere. Another upside to all this conservation is the improved air quality. Even here in the city, the air is fresh and pollution is limited. Sundays are especially good air days, since almost all the stores are closed.

NEXUS: Economic Growth, Democracy, Community Development.

By: Thomas C. England, President ME&A

Here at ME&A, we have long been a proponent of local economic development (LED) strategic planning as a central approach to development, and we are currently working on refined models of its application, both internationally and domestically. Borrowing from existing models of economic development, particularly those of the World Bank and successful approaches carried out in the US and other developed countries, we incorporate best practices of each into a flexible approach that can be applied in many developing countries.

To begin, we base our approach on the premise that regional economies are more natural ones than national models, and should be an important focus of USAID country strategies. That is because regional (local) economies are the primary engines of economic activity. Focusing on them with development strategies will yield the most benefit from limited resource allocation. According to urbanist Jane Jacobs, "A national economy is the sum of a nation's city economies and the past and current secondary effects of city economies upon the economies of towns, villages and wildernesses."

The nexus between economic growth and other aspects of community development and democratic governance is all in the “how” regional and local strategies are applied, and the selection of institutions and individuals involved in the process. Here are some key factors:

1. Strategies must be based on the real economy of the region, with accurate delineation of the region geographically, an accurate profile of assets and challenges, and a competitive analysis of the economic or business sectors of the economy. These regions are essentially “organic,” and rarely follow political jurisdictional lines, so must include collaboration with multiple political jurisdictions.

2. The key institutions of the region must be involved, both public and private, in partnership—the classic public-private partnership. Targeted developmental assistance should be focused on the institutional and human resource requirements utilizing human and institutional capacity development (HICD) approaches.

3. Resources should be applied from a variety of sources, both public and private. But for long-term sustainability, private sources are best. Donor aid should not be counted on in the long run.

4. Objectives related to democracy, governance, and civil society are realized through the participatory “from the bottom up” nature of the LED process, designed into the program. All relevant stakeholders are involved in setting objectives, development priorities, and measuring results. Advocacy for good governance and related themes can be a prominent part of the process.

5. Community development objectives are taken into account by expanding the thrust of the strategic process into areas beyond purely business and economic ones, such as health, education, transportation, and public utilities—clean water and sanitation systems—and others related to the environment and the quality of life. The City Alliance program model of a City Development Strategy (CDS) is one such example. However, the strategy must be based on economic growth as its most important pillar.

Current focuses for donor aid programs, including those of USAID, are often driven by analyses of national economies. National governments, their policies and resource allocations are of course important, and provide the context for regional and local development. But a more direct and fruitful approach for a democratic country with a market economy focuses on key regional economies, which are normally, but not always, on a sub-national level, and city-centered. Our approach suggests that more time be given to regional economic analysis, which will lead to the creation of the right solutions to meet the real challenges of a nation and its people.