I wish I knew. A fellow asked me today, given I've taught career management courses for over 30 years, how one could retire. He was thinking about his situation. I was thinking about mine.
Some say, "never retire." Why would you want to stop doing what you want to do? I get that. In fact, I've taught a lot about passion and flow over the years (thanks to Doug Newburg and Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi), and if one is passionate about one's work/profession/activities indeed, why retire? I have a colleague who declares they will carry him out in a box. So, for some (many?) retirement means giving up life. In stragne support of this view, there has some data that noted that something like three-quarters of retirees died within 18 months of their retirement. If you have a role/job you love, and you're still good at it, and it fulfills you, why not continue? My personal physician is in his eighties and going strong.
Some say retire as soon as you can so you can live the 'good life.' One hears people talking about how quickly they want to retire. Babblings of the naive? What would the good life be? Playing golf every day? Lounging on the couch or beach or porch? Writing novels in Key West? Surely it depends on how one defines the good life. My friend and co-author Doug Newburg defines success as "when it's over, you want to do it again." Not money. Not fame. Not power. Bill Clinton recently (this is 2011) said he's doing what he loves. What would you like to do over and over again? What could you do for months on end without losing energy and engagement?
So I get that some people are more, what, Type-A or engaged or passionate. I've been/am a workaholic and have read the books on it. (e.g Diane Fassel's work) If a highly engaged lifestyle is in your blood or better said, "habitual routines," would you be happy retiring? I've met both types as I guess you have: those who LOVE their retirement and those who are bored and end up going back to work.
Is retirement just about how much financial stake you have? The headlines these days trumpet the Boomer's anxiety about not having enough to retire. The government keeps raising the eligible age. Is retirement really the holy grail after which we all should be seeking, the life of "leisure?" What if I/you had $100 million in the bank? What would you do? Quit? And do what? You're probably aware of the research showing that the majority of those who win the lottery would give it back because it ruined their lives. "Sure," you say, "don't throw me in that briar patch! Let TRY it!"
A new insight hit me today, though, after my friend asked his question. I do like doing what I do, I just want to do it more at my pace. I realize that's a loaded statement. What is "my pace?" I've grown weary of meeting other people's schedules. Of canceling things I want to do for things I feel obligated to do. I love variety. My job is great for me. A professor of business enjoys opportunities to read, write, gather data and make sense of it, publish, teach, work in administration, consult, travel the world, and meet daily interesting and highly energetic people. We are largely in control of our own schedules, way more than many other jobs. I lucked (read "trial-and-errored" myself) into a profession that suits me to a T. AND I'm getting a bit weary. I want to set my schedule more. I no longer want to have to get up to be somewhere. I'd rather get up to workout--at my pace. I know, whine whine whine. Not really. I love my job AND I'm getting tired. A colleague advised me recently, "you know what, you can slow down. You've earned it." The comment sounded very reassuring and encouraging. Then I wondered, "Is that how deadwood is formed?" I don't ever want to be deadwood. Heaven and my mother forbid.
So, a new definition of retirement is emerging for me. How about for you? I'm imagining retirement as a diminishing and lengthening sine wave, reducing the amplitude and the frequency until gradually and peacefully, I'm able to continue enjoying my broad interests without pressing or hurrying, rather, letting the natural pace of my lifespan settle down. Nancy Gross' quote on the importance finding a pace 'which neither hurries you nor holds you back' suits me here. I admit I've been trying to live like that for decades, usually unsuccessfully.High engagement does produce a lot. And in my case, some weariness.
A colleague came into my office the other day and said, "Wow, I look around and you seem like someone who's lived two or three lifetimes in one." Hmm. He offered it as a kind of compliment. In my mind's eye, I remember my mother's constant advice about never making a deadhead run--that is, never coming or going empty-handed, even from one room to the other; you could always be carrying something. Like many, I often have trouble relaxing. I embrace this better now than before. Maybe that's one step on the road to a diminishing sine wave retirement; accepting who one is.
So, I'm writing this while watching golf and feeding the dog. The peaceful pace cannot come from outside-in, only from inside-out.
We might think of several types of potential retirees here:
1. Person who dislikes work and always has and wants to get out as fast as they can. This person's major constraints are savings and lifestyle. The lower your lifestyle standards, the sooner you can retire. Healthcare is a huge part of this calculation. We still need to figure out in the wealthiest nation on earth how to handle the growing health tidal wave of the Baby Boomer generation.
2. Person who loves what they do and can't imagine not doing it. For this person, retirement is perhaps just slowing down as the abrasions of age takes its toll.
3. Person laid off or 'forced' into considering retirement. This person requires some careful reflection about who they are, what they want to do, and if they have the energy to make it happen--which is likely to mean making some changes in life-long habits. These folks probably grind on this issue as much as the first group.
4. Person who has lots to do besides work. These people can find fulfillment in charity work, writing, art, athletics, and other non-professional work experiences. For this person, life after work is not threatening rather a pleasant invitation to attend to avocations long admired and contemplated. But will they actually like them when they are faced with just those? Thought about learning a language or taking up guitar? What if you get bored or sore fingers? What if you move to be near your children and create waves in the relationship?
Retirement doesn't have to mean the same for all. Generically, ceasing to work for livelihood seems like a good definition. That doesn't mean we have to cease living or producing or enjoying or creating. Even those growing a bit slower and having a bit less energy know that being human means finding enjoyable activities, preparing and anticipating, executing, and enjoying the experience of doing. This will likely be true until the last day we are able.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Great Leadership Link
Dan McCarthy, dean of the Whittemore Business School at UNH, writes and composes an interesting blog on "Great Leadership." You might enjoy. http://www.greatleadershipbydan.com/
Leaders vs. Managers
Over the last month, I've participated in and observed a heated debate among academics (on-line) about the differences between leaders and managers. Everyone seems to have their own strongly held view and not much persuasion seems to have taken place. Perhaps this is an academic debate. For those striving to influence others and to make things happen, though, I offer what I think is an important distinction.
This distinction has to do with how much one lives outside-in versus inside-out. By "outside-in" I mean that one consciously or pre-consciously weighs what "they" might think before one acts or speaks. The more we adjust our behavior to fit in, the more we are living outside-in. And that's not all bad. It is the basis for orderly society. People drive on the correct side of the road, obey most of the laws, put on clothes in public, and speak with some deference and these things and many more allow for an orderly community.
At the same time, we can imagine in addition to how much we mindfully and mindlessly conform how much we initiate fresh thoughts and behaviors based on our own recognizance. How much do we allow original thoughts? Behaviors? Approaches? Insights? A community (or nation) that rates high on conformity is less likely to be adaptive, innovative, and probably even viable.
Why? Because things change.
So, here's the distinction I draw between leaders and managers. Both try to influence people but the underlying question is "with whose ideas?" Management (and again, it depends on how one defines the term, yes?) in my view focuses more on getting things done that others have determined, devised, and declared. Managers work toward goals, ideals, and outcomes--that others largely have set or prescribed. In that sense, while managers work hard to get others to do things, and are essential to every organization, they are living more "outside-in" than inside-out in that others have set the vision, the dreams, and the goals.
Managers tend to use what I will call "level one" and "level two" approaches. These are behavioral rewards and punishments for the former and logic and reason for the latter.
Leaders on the other hand are those who think beyond the current expectations and imagine a different emerging world. Leaders are those who see beyond current boundaries and expectations and dare to initiate stretches or changes or radical disruptions. Call it "vision" if you want, but the terminology is less important than the phenomenon--the ability to live more inside-out and less outside-in.
Of course, if one lives too much "inside-out" one might find one's self bankrupt or in prison. There are risks. And the risks run deep because they accrue to the leader's account not someone else's.
Take for example Jeff Immelt's eleven year run as CEO at GE. He inherited a company that had developed 20 years of cultural focus on fit and efficiency. Jack Welch's determination to get the right mix and then play only in games he could win created enormous wealth. Immelt decided that doing what was good for yesterday ever more efficiently wouldn't win the future. His emphasis on ten new technological innovative streams has yet to prove as financially successful as Welch's legacy. AND Mr. Immelt is clearly working inside-out. There's risk.
How much of your life do you live outside-in? That is, before you speak or act, how much do you consciously or semi-consciously think about what "they" will say? Are you willing to stretch or break current convention for the sake of a new initiative or direction?
People who live 100% outside-in and hence 0% inside-out, we might call "doormats," or "cowards" or "sheep" or as James Joyce termed it "clay." People who live 100% inside-out and 0% outside-in at the other end of the scale we might call ego-centric, self-centered, narcissistic SOBs.
On average, where are you on this scale? If you wanted to be a leader and not "just" a manager, where should you be on this scale? That is, in your view, how much inside-out would an effective leader be? Do you habitually ask others where we should go? Or do you find yourself habitually thinking of new visions and directions. I invite you to think about this tension-balance and observe yourself over time. And to reflect on how differences in the proportions of this tension-balance might define leadership and management.
This distinction has to do with how much one lives outside-in versus inside-out. By "outside-in" I mean that one consciously or pre-consciously weighs what "they" might think before one acts or speaks. The more we adjust our behavior to fit in, the more we are living outside-in. And that's not all bad. It is the basis for orderly society. People drive on the correct side of the road, obey most of the laws, put on clothes in public, and speak with some deference and these things and many more allow for an orderly community.
At the same time, we can imagine in addition to how much we mindfully and mindlessly conform how much we initiate fresh thoughts and behaviors based on our own recognizance. How much do we allow original thoughts? Behaviors? Approaches? Insights? A community (or nation) that rates high on conformity is less likely to be adaptive, innovative, and probably even viable.
Why? Because things change.
So, here's the distinction I draw between leaders and managers. Both try to influence people but the underlying question is "with whose ideas?" Management (and again, it depends on how one defines the term, yes?) in my view focuses more on getting things done that others have determined, devised, and declared. Managers work toward goals, ideals, and outcomes--that others largely have set or prescribed. In that sense, while managers work hard to get others to do things, and are essential to every organization, they are living more "outside-in" than inside-out in that others have set the vision, the dreams, and the goals.
Managers tend to use what I will call "level one" and "level two" approaches. These are behavioral rewards and punishments for the former and logic and reason for the latter.
Leaders on the other hand are those who think beyond the current expectations and imagine a different emerging world. Leaders are those who see beyond current boundaries and expectations and dare to initiate stretches or changes or radical disruptions. Call it "vision" if you want, but the terminology is less important than the phenomenon--the ability to live more inside-out and less outside-in.
Of course, if one lives too much "inside-out" one might find one's self bankrupt or in prison. There are risks. And the risks run deep because they accrue to the leader's account not someone else's.
Take for example Jeff Immelt's eleven year run as CEO at GE. He inherited a company that had developed 20 years of cultural focus on fit and efficiency. Jack Welch's determination to get the right mix and then play only in games he could win created enormous wealth. Immelt decided that doing what was good for yesterday ever more efficiently wouldn't win the future. His emphasis on ten new technological innovative streams has yet to prove as financially successful as Welch's legacy. AND Mr. Immelt is clearly working inside-out. There's risk.
How much of your life do you live outside-in? That is, before you speak or act, how much do you consciously or semi-consciously think about what "they" will say? Are you willing to stretch or break current convention for the sake of a new initiative or direction?
People who live 100% outside-in and hence 0% inside-out, we might call "doormats," or "cowards" or "sheep" or as James Joyce termed it "clay." People who live 100% inside-out and 0% outside-in at the other end of the scale we might call ego-centric, self-centered, narcissistic SOBs.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Tegel me no more 8-(
I love Berlin's Tegel airport. You get out of the cab, and you're right at the gate. Security is run at each gate. No long lines. When you get off the plane, they deliver your baggage AT THE GATE. It's amazing. This last trip, my bags were there when I got to the gate. Amazing. I LOVE Tegel. And of course, they are shutting it down. I'm reminded of Jared Diamond's discussion of the Collapse of Societies and how sometimes the modern way is unsustainable and a big step backward. Sometimes the older system is more reliable, sustainable, convenient, and efficient. The Vikings in Greenland wouldn't learn from the Inuits and eventually died out. The New Guineans have been living there along with the Tokopian Islanders thank you for 46,000 years and then along came the "Europeans." I'm sure Shoenflug will be a nice airport. The new Denver airport was a nice (looking) airport. I'm sad that "they" are shutting down Tegel and moving. I can't imagine a more convenient experience than Tegel.
Now, Frankfurt and Munich on the other hand, are large, confusing, under-signed, and maze-like. Everytime I follow the signs, I end up in the wrong place. The electronic board says --> and it turns out the right way is <--. Tring to find the G gates in Munich? Be careful, you might find yourself outside before you know it. Frankfurt? Take a map, a GPS, and a personal guide and then run and hope for the best.
Don't take my Tegel!! Too late, I suppose.
Now, Frankfurt and Munich on the other hand, are large, confusing, under-signed, and maze-like. Everytime I follow the signs, I end up in the wrong place. The electronic board says --> and it turns out the right way is <--. Tring to find the G gates in Munich? Be careful, you might find yourself outside before you know it. Frankfurt? Take a map, a GPS, and a personal guide and then run and hope for the best.
Don't take my Tegel!! Too late, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)