What's a FRIEND?

How many friends do you have in life?  First, I guess, we need to figure out "what's a friend?"  I have a friend who has 8,000 people in his Rollodex, and he claims he "knows" them all.  I'm skeptical.

Let's begin with a fairly "severe" or tight definition:  someone with whom you can talk about anything and it's safe.  No topics barred.  You can talk about all of the dinner table "taboo" topics and it's okay:  money, income, politics, religion, sex, marriage, parenting, ALL of it--and you know they won't judge you and/or ostracize you.

How many people do you have that fit that definition?  Count them.

I've asked this question of more than  2,500 professional people (attending seminars) in cities all over the world including France, Germany, England, Egypt, Greece, Turkey, South Africa, India, China, Japan, Thailand, Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Canada, multiple US states, etc.  Most people hold up 1-3 fingers.  Many hold up zero.  A few, very few, hold up ten.   One fellow said, "0.8!"  What?  "Yeah," he said, "there's 20% of my life I haven't told my wife."  One tentative conclusion from these convenience sample data would be, "It's a relatively lonely life, that is, not very many people really know who we are."

Why is it that we don't share more of our lives, our thoughts, our beliefs with others?  I believe it's because of the fear of rejection.  We are afraid that others would judge us, criticize us, reject us, perhaps even kill us, so we keep our thoughts to ourselves.  Maybe we fear the conflict that will likely arise if others don't agree with us.  Whatever the cause (what's your explanation?), the vast majority of people have very few "friends" who totally know them.

 I didn't have anyone in that "totally-knows-me" category until I was 48.  It just wasn't safe.  After I stepped away from a system that prescribed language, dress, behavior, thoughts, beliefs, and actions, I found it much easier to even think about accepting others they way they are and in return anticipating that others might offer the same to me.

By the time I was fifty, I had developed four such people. How refreshing that was.

Two of them were colleagues at work.  We'd go to a late Friday afternoon watering hole and share our experiences with marriage, life, money, politics, all of it.  I was blown away by this honesty and authenticity.  Then, one of them had a heart attack and died.  Another took another job, and I seldom saw him again.  The third guy I paid $100 an hour to.  (!)  And the fourth was my wife.  As it turns out, she knows everything about me, all of it, the warts, the dark side, the politically incorrect thoughts, all of it, and still says she adores me.  She is the most unconditionally accepting person I've ever met.  Her love is re-generating.

Later another somewhat less "totally transparent" friend organized a "Workaholics Retreat" for a small group of us to meet, play golf, and talk through life in the evenings.  I found these conversations engaging, interesting, provocative -- and less than wholly authentic.  I could tell there were topics and issues that members of the group were not ready nor willing to engage.  And clearly that would involve judgment and probably rejection.  Over time this group developed to include at varying times up to fifteen people.  While they are "friends," there are many things that I would not feel "safe" discussing with them.  And I can tell, they not with me.

So, how do you define a "friend?"  Here are some ideas for your consideration...  If you disagree, I'd be eager to hear your thoughts below.

A true friend ....

1. Accepts you as you are and isn't trying to change you.
2. Is willing even eager to know everything about you without judging you.
3. Is willing to share everything about themselves without fear of being judged.
4. Will do whatever they can to help you in a time of need.
5. Enjoys spending time with you.
6. Keeps in touch, they enjoy communicating with you, sharing the events of life back and forth.

So, perhaps we can agree that a person is not either a "whole" friend or no friend at all.  Friendship, like many things, (not pregnancy though), is an analog concept, not a binary one.  There might be some peripheral friends, some moderate friends, and some close friends.  Clearly, the list above would define a close friend.  We can imagine a set of concentric circles with distance on the outer rings and intimacy on the inner rings and people who fit into each circle.  When you count your friends, how far out do you go?  Again, though, I'd ask how many are there in that innermost circle?

Likewise, we could also ask about the balance between the two people, you and your friends.  We all know of people who are more highly invested in a relationship with us than we are with them--and vice verse.  These relationships might be characterized as "imbalanced."  How many times do you distance yourself from others who want to get closer?  And how many times are your initiatives rebuffed by others with whom you'd like to be closer?   

Of course, this all begs the question, "How good a friend are you to others?"  Does it take one to be one?  If you don't have as many friends as you'd like, are you making the effort to be a friend?  I know someone who doesn't send holiday greetings and then is sad because he doesn't get more.  Another who doesn't invite people to dinner, and then is sad when he isn't invited to dinner.  A good friend of mine drove 8 hours one way to visit me when I had knee replacement surgery, stayed one night, then drove 8 hours home.  That was very impressive to me.  I didn't do the same for him when he had the same surgery.  My excuse was I had class and had to teach.  I still feel guilty about not reciprocating as deeply as my friend did.  How about you?  Have you had a similar experience?

Can one ever balance the books in a relationship, particularly those with close friends?  Perhaps the point is you don't have to.  If they are, and if you are, a true friend, the balance doesn't matter.  You like them, they like you, and they give you slack for your imperfections, and you them.  Yet.... at some point, the lack of reciprocity with behavior, authentic sharing of self, or caring will affect the depth of the friendship.  Yes/no?

What's a friend?  Someone who knows you?  Knows you?  How completely?  (Does any living person know you completely?)  Someone who's there when you need them?  Someone who expresses their feelings for you?  

How many do you have?  To how many are you one?  

VDOT

I like VDOT.  I have friends who have worked there in significant positions.  I like most of the VA highways on which I enjoy travel.  I love their mission statement, "Keep Virginia Moving."  What a great, simple, powerful mission statement.  A model for the private sector.  I love the newly resurfaced roads we enjoy this summer.  I love the Richmond and Lynchburg bypasses.  I've even written a business school case about VDOT.

That said, there are a couple of things that boggle my mind.

1.  Richmond to Newport News.  Every weekend throughout the summer the caribou migrations move down I-64 from Richmond to and beyond Williamsburg on their way to the annual relaxing grounds of OBX.  Every weekend the traffic on I-64 is stop and go.  STOP and GO on a freeway.  It's been that way for 30 years since I've been here.  WHY don't we/they widen that section of I-64?  There seems to be the room to do it.  WHY?  WHY? WHY?  PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE!

2. The Charlottesville Western By-Pass seems to be a joke.  It is not enough of a bypass, won't solve the problem, and will just postpone the needed solution.  First, if 29 is a major artery (it is), we should stop putting stoplights on it.  We are becoming what Lynchburg was until they built their bypass.  I once counted 29 stoplights on my way south through Lynchburg back in the day.  Now there's only four.  Four too many, but still only four. 

*  NO MORE STOP LIGHTS ON US-29!  Unless they are on the  "business" portion and not the by-pass.  Build interchanges.  Yes they are expensive.  But in the long run, you end up having to build them or a more expensive by-pass anyway.  Think ahead! 

*  Build a real by-pass around Charlottesville, not this piddling little thing, the current proposal.  Of course, the problem is that there is no good place to build a by-pass around Charlottesville, the terrain doesn't invite.  The Eastern Option starting farther north below Ruckersville just above Proffitt Road/Airport Road, run east then south parallel to 20 and around the upper reaches of Trevillian Mountain to connect to I-64 means expensive hillside cutting and blasting and a mess on Pantops.  The Western Option means cutting across the upper reaches of the reservoir, between Charlottesville and Ivy and then connecting with I-64 below US-29 creating a short eastern jog to get back on 29.  I favor the Western Option--but environmentalists don't.  Build the Buck Mountain reservoir.  You can't have too much water.  Run the by-pass from north of Proffitt Road, past the airport linking it better, then looping westerly through farmland, over the upper reaches of the reservoir tributaries and then through Ivy to I-64.  I know, "they" have already examined and discarded these two options.  The current proposal however doesn't really do much.  And it runs next to several schools.  Let's put the trucks by the cows and horses and away from the schools... and build a real by-pass not a little coronary graft that won't do much.. 

Taxes

It REALLY annoys me that the tax situation in the US is a) so complicated and b) unfair.  I suppose many people share that view.  I pay 35% federal income tax.  We have to hire a tax preparer who is an expert on all of the ins and outs of the latest changes in the tax code to ensure that we are paying our fair share---and not overpaying.  People who have most of their income in capital gains tax are paying 15% federal tax.  I don't think that's fair.  Typically, these folks are on the wealthier end of the scale.  I realize that I'm in the so-called "top 1%" of the income spectrum, however, there is a HUGE difference between 99.0 and 99.1% and 99.5% and the 99.9% folks.  I am very annoyed that people making $5mm to $100mm a year off capital gains are paying 15% tax "so that we can keep the interest in investing in America alive."  BS.  We all should share proportionally in the support of the nation.

I believe (does anyone care what I believe?) that everyone, everyone, in our society should participate in the responsibility for supporting our nation and our economy.  For me that would mean the following:

1. Every sitting member of Congress in a year when the budget was not balanced and the current deficit being reduced would become automatically ineligible for re-election.  I know this is floating around the internet.  Still I think it's a great idea.  Members of Congress should not get special privileges regarding healthcare, income, tax treatment, etc.  They are citizens like the rest of us.  Lawmakers should not be insulated from the experience of the rest of us.
2. Federal and State income taxes would be eliminated entirely, first reduced and then phased completely out over a ten year period...and replaced by...
3.  Federal and State expenses should be converted into a national and state sales tax structure.  I don't know what the % would be, but probably about 25% for the combination for both federal and state and to include basic health care for all people living in our society.  Also applied to corporations and busineses.  In this structure, everyone in the American economy, including those on welfare and those who are here illegally and those who are at the upper end would be participating in the support of the national strategy including health care, defense, etc., in a direct, proportional way.  You buy more, you pay more tax in absolute dollars.  You decide how much you want to enjoy and at the same time how much you want to contribute to the commonweal.

*  The idea of a flat tax has been around for a while.  Probably not going to happen for some reasons outlined below.  But, jeez, our current situation is stifling.  Complicated.  Expensive to administer.  Expensive to figure out how much to contribute.  Large numbers of people not contributing.

     *  Some say this is a "regressive" idea in that the poor who receive welfare would be taxed when they aren't now.  While that would be true, I believe that rich or poor, everyone should have some stake in the national game.   This approach would greatly reduce the argument over entitlements and "rights."  Even if you are on welfare, you would pay into the common fund, and you decide how much by deciding what you buy.  If you buy a cheap car, you pay less tax.  If you go to Lowe's and buy home improvement stuff, whether you are legal or not, you pay into the national pool.  If you buy a $400,000 car, you pay more tax.  You, the individual would decide what you can afford, but whenever there is a business transaction, a portion of that, a quarter of it for example would go into the national and state pools.  Yes, I know, why pay out welfare then tax it?  My answer is so that everyone in society is a participant in the citizenship part of supporting our national society.

*  This shift would be a problem for many people.  Those who have not been taxed at all would chafe.  Those who are here illegally, would chafe.  The tax preparation industry would chafe.  Those paying 15% income tax would chafe.  We'd have to figure out how to handle wealthy companies who don't buy much, ie in the services industries.  We'd have to find ways to avoid continuously raising the percentage each administration, a law that would require the government to stay within certain limits.  That limit might be a quarter, 25%.  Okay you numbers guys, tell me, how much would it have to be today to cover our bills.  If our current federal budget is about $4 trillion in a $14 trillion economy, then we might expect that something of the order of 30% should do it.  Whatever that number is, it should be capped.  AND see item 1 above, every year the government should stay within its means.  If the GDP shrinks a little, so should spending. 

*  I learned recently that in India, a nation with about a billion people, only 35 million pay taxes.  When I asked why, the answer was "All of the politicians are corrupt.  If we pay taxes, we still don't get services."  In the US, in a nation of 310+million, we have over a 100 million tax payers.  That's better.  But I worry that our middle class is eroding, that we have fewer and fewer tax payers, and that self-serving corruption is way too rampant in our society, both in the public and private sectors. We need to simplify and make more transparent the national revenue generating system.  Flushing the income tax and instituting a national sales tax would help do that.

*  The benefits would be many.  Simplicity.  Fewer entities to collect from (businesses only not every household.).  The sense of "citizenship participation" would go up although some who don't pay now would be unhappy for a while, maybe even a generation.  At first that would be a point of contention.  Yet, discretion of tax paid would be squarely on the shoulders of those who participate in the economy.  Everyone would be contributing to healthcare, to defense, to highways, to education, not just a "taxable" portion of society.  If you want to be a hermit and not contribute, okay, but don't use power, highways, or the hospital.  Everytime you buy something, you can say, I'm paying my taxes today.  No quarterly estimates.  No over payments.  No refunds.  Pay as you go.

*  What about black markets?  If you do business underground, you wouldn't be paying tax.  The "IRS" and the FBI would shift their focus to finding and shutting down black markets.  If you do business with black market vendors, you face prosecution. 

*  What about service industries?  How would the financial services industries pay tax?  This is a challenge, or maybe not.  If we continue with the rationale of paying tax on what you purchase, companies would pay federal and state sales tax when they pay employees, when they buy human capital.  This would have a dampening affect on wages and bonuses and salaries.  If a company pays an employee $100,000, they pay a sales tax of $25,000 on top.  But don't have to pay medical insurance.

4. I think every person living in the United States has a "right" to basic medical care.  Which leads to the question, "Does anyone have any kind of 'right?'"  A group of friends had an active debate about this over breakfast recently.  One view was that there are no rights and that anyone who cannot make it in the Darwinian world should be put out on the "hillside" and become food for predators. If you cannot support yourself, tough.   Jeffersonian principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness immediately came into the debate.  I believe that we live in the richest country in the world and that we should be able to provide basic healthcare for every citizen.  We'll get back to "basic" in a minute.  If we weren't such a rich country, we might not be able to offer that kind of basic security to our citizens.  But we are.  Are we citizens of a nation, or just independent, self-centered wealth accumulators? 

*  What kind of society does one want to live in?  I want to live in a society in which there is music, art, history, compassion, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from basic disease, freedom from bodily harm.  I don't want to have to create all of that for myself--by playing the piano, reading history, providing my own fire protection, arming and defending my home (like I saw in South Africa where each home had a high fence, guns, and other things needed to be an "island,") and building my own highways.  I like the blessing, the good fortune, the opportunity, of being born an American. 

*  I think America should, like every nation, have a charter.  A charter for me includes a purpose, a vision, core values, a strategy, and short-term operating goals--all decided by leadership.  I am appalled at how many nations, and how many companies, don't have charters--and hence they drift.  I believe that an American principle is that we strive to help those who cannot help themselves.  That's the kind of America I want to live in.  I also am deeply offended by those who take advantage of our system--whether it be the capable-of-working welfare recipient or the person making $100mm and pays only 15% taxes.  If the POTUS cannot clearly state the mission of the USA, a vision for the USA, a set of core principles, a set of strategies to reach the vision, and clear short-term goals, shame on him/her.  Same for any head of state or CEO. 

*  Inheritance.  Should you be allowed to give your children a silver spoon?  It's bad for them.  You earned it and you love them, and they didn't earn it.  All gifts, charitable donations, and bequests would be taxed at the normal rate.  Contributions to the following would be tax free:  public schools (ie, anyone who qualifies intellectually can attend), hospitals, long-term care facilities for the infirm, mentally ill, and aged, fire departments, rescue squads, and public police departments.  If you bequeath your estate to your kids, the government takes the sales tax rate off the top, (25-30%?)  If your child is the CEO of one of the groups listed just above, perhaps you can donate to that organization.

*  Given our wealth and success, I think we should be able to offer every citizen the following basic health care:  annual physicals with resulting advice, immunizations, treatment for broken bones, infections, flus, allergies, and other common ailments, mental disorders in the form of medication and a place to sleep, and accidental injuries.  I don't think (at the moment) that the commonweal should have to, be required to, pay for artificial sustenance of life.  Clinics either government run or sub-contracted could be funded from the sales tax.  Yes, this would mean that no one has a right to a kidney transplant.  If you want medical care beyond the basics, you have to save and devote to it.

6.  Education.  I believe every American should have access to reasonably priced education from 1- 12.  Tuition for education at all levels should be tax free up to a certain level.  Public schools offer free education for all from grades 1-12 funded out of sales tax revenues.  Tuition for college is tax-free up to a Congressionally agreed upon state university average.  Tuition above that is taxable.  If you go to Harvard, you pay more tuition and tax on that tuition or you get scholarships--or the school lets you in free.  You don't have to go to the school in your "district."  Property taxes disappear.  You pay tax when you buy your home.  Your childern can go to whatever school they wish; you will likely choose the better schools.  Schools will be challenged to offer better education to attract more students.  Schools will be paid per student out of the sales tax commonweal. 

I realize that many of these ideas are controversial and that few if any of them are likely to happen given our current history, legal structure, economic structure, and political structure.  And frankly, my views are still evolving. 

That said, I'm still very annoyed at the complicated nature of our income tax system, at the rich who are able to find ways to avoid taxes legally, at Congress who puts us further and further into debt as a nation, at the crime rates we see, and our inability to administer our affairs with efficiency, fairness and compassion.  Yes, I believe America is still the best place in the world, for me.  Yes, I'm grateful I was born in the USA.  And yes, some of the things we do and have done embarrass me.

My core principles underlying the above are:

1.  Have a charter for your nation.  If you don't, you are derelict.
2.  Don't spend more than you have.  Debt is debilitating--regardless of what they teach you in finance class.  Debt is an open-vein on the body politic.
3.  Everyone should participate in the building and support of one's nation proportionally to their means.  This builds commitment and national pride. There is, should be, no free lunch.
4.  Every US citizen should have the promise (all it a right if you wish) of liberty, basic health assurance, and basic education.  My colleague says he "owes" his children "straight teeth and a college education.  After that, they are on their own."  Our government, I believe, owes us liberty, basic health, basic education, and after that, we have some foundation for making our own luck and futures.  No one has a right to be rich.  Yet given our history, we can and should offer our citizens some basic foundational asurances.
5. We should be compassionate toward those who did not ask for their situation. Reagan putting the mentally ill out on the streets was cruel.  Reagan building up our national strength was wise.  Which birth defects should the commonweal cover regardless of socio-economic status? 
6.  We need to simplify in a major way our national revenue system.
7.  A strong, free, middle class is essential to the long-term health of the USA. 

So, I am thinking out loud, wrestling with many issues.  Issues I care about.  Issues my colleagues and friends care about.  I invite your comments below.  If you have a better logic, a better alternative, let/us know about it.  Don't just criticize, that's too easy, just give me/us your better alternative.  With some data if you can.  May the peaceful parts of Mother Nature be upon you.

How to Retire

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.

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.

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.