Continuing in this commendable fashion, Brooks writes in the The York Times that the social development of human beings is remarkably unlike that of all other life forms in that moral underpinnings are common to human interaction.  His commentary “Nice Guys Finish First” brings together numerous recent social, neuro-scientific, religious and anthropological studies to illustrate that unlike all other mammals, humans are best served to care for each other as well as protect themselves.  As a matter of cultural development, the “survival of the fittest” is tempered in humans by the need to cooperate to achieve mutual benefit.  When I act in cooperation with others, I am willing to sacrifice something of selfish value to achieve a “greater good”.  Only humans are capable of this moral thinking, Brooks (and his sources) argue.

This tension between preserving one’s self-interest and the mutually beneficial pursuit of the interests of others is a key element of conflict management theory and practice.  Neither should predominate at the expense of the other.  Both must be managed in a healthy interdependent fashion.

Accommodating the needs of others without regard to personal interest leads to exploitation and abuse.  Competition without regard to the needs of others destroys relationships and diminishes the value of living and working in community.  Skilled conflict managers in business, civic affairs, personal and religious settings know how to hold these seemingly inconsistent forces in a healthy and constructive tension.

It is exciting to realize how science and social researchers are confirming what the conflict management community has known and practiced for decades:  competition and cooperation are not “either/or” propositions.  “Both/and” is the power behind innovation, creativity and problem-solving and the key to building a better society.

Confirming what the Peter Principle suggested decades ago, Google has proven statistically that technical expertise does not a great manager make.  In 1972 Dr. Peter posited that the tendency of organizations is to promote people to their level of incompetence.  In the process, people who perform extremely well in one position often lack the qualities which are required to lead others to similar excellence.  As a result, promoting a great technician does not necessarily mean that he or she will prove to be a great manager.  To the contrary, unless possessed of an enhanced skill set, great technicians can be very poor managers and the team will suffer from lack of leadership.

As reported in today’s New York Times, over the last two years Google has been analyzing what makes a great supervisory leader at Google.  Rather than conducting an anecdotal study, Google applied statistical analysis to 10,000 manager observations using over 100 variables to determine not only what traits made a manager a great leader, but to prioritize those traits in terms of importance.

To human resources professionals it should be no surprise that technical competence in the area of subordinate performance was the least important leadership trait of the eight characteristics which data established as critical.  Instead, in statistical order of importance, the behavior traits of the best managers at Google are:

1.  Be a good coach

2.  Empower your team and don’t micromanage

3.  Express interest in team members’ success and personal well-being

4.  Don’t be a sissy:  Be productive and results oriented

5.  Be a good communicator and listen to your team

6.  Help your employees with career development

7.  Have a clear vision and strategy for the team

8.  Have key technical skills so you can help advise the team

There are three negative corollaries which failed leaders at Google exhibit as well:  1) Have trouble making a transition to the team, 2) Lack a consistent approach to performance management and career development and 3) Spend too little time managing and communicating.

Google reports that one-on-one coaching in these behavior traits with problem managers has resulted in as much as 75% improvement in their performance. These are not skills that great leaders are born with.  They can be taught!

Again, evidence continues to mount that those who want to lead change in organizations and people are those equipped to lead from within and “beneath”.  Rather than assuming hierarchical command and control, the best managers are those that are coaches, equippers and encouragers.  Excelling in a substantive skill is clearly not enough to lead others to great performance.  In fact, it the least important trait of great leaders.

Mangers at Google have now deprived the autocratic naysayers of the tired argument that “squishy, touchy, feely” personal empowerment behaviors are unhelpful in the highly competitive marketplace.  And they have done it with data.

The best leaders have always been those who invest in others, authentically demonstrate their interest and concern while demanding high performance and equipping their team members to provide it.

Don’t believe it?  “Google it.”

When Watson trounced former Jeopardy champions, Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter earlier this week, the machine beat the men. Watson finished with game winnings of $77,147, Jennings with $24,000 and Rutter with $21,600. In addition, Watson’s victory sent $1,000,000 to its (his) favorite charity. It seemed that we witnessed the Hal prophecy come true this week.

Or did we?

Some think so. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that “servers” such as doctors and lawyers hold jobs which are truly in jeopardy. According to hedge fund manager and author, Andy Kessler, technology will gradually replace those who answer questions from consumers under a grant of licensed exclusivity. See, Is Your Job an Endangered Species? Citing the degree to which ediscovery technology replaces the work previously done by lawyers and paralegals, Kessler observes that much of what lawyers currently do eventually will be done by computers (like Watson).

However, even Kessler’s pessimistic (or realistic) view of the impact of technology on the serving professions recognizes a significant difference between servers and creators. Until artificial intelligence can do more than merely search for answers (like Google and Watson), humans have the edge in the realm of creativity.

I was reminded of this also this week when I attended the Napier-Looby Bar Foundation banquet in Nashville which recognized the powerful work of lawyers in changing the world for the better. In addition to awards given to local members of the African-American bar for their work in social change, we heard from the “King of the Court”. Perry Wallace was the first black basketball player to play in the Southeastern Conference. He was recruited by Vanderbilt University in 1966 and was treated to unimaginable hostility in university arenas across the South as he broke through the previously all-white world of SEC basketball.

Wallace later went to law school at Columbia and has impacted the world through his work as a lawyer and educator. He currently serves as a professor of law at Washington College of Law. He has been a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice. He told the story of his involvement in cases like that of a woman condemned to death by stoning for adultery in a Middle Eastern country while her adulterous partner was spared any penalty whatever.

Watson and his descendants will never accomplish feats of courage, conscience and creativity like that. There always will be a place for those who can change the course of history, not simply recount it.

However, lawyers who are content to perform tasks best performed by computers are an endangered species and will find their jobs outsourced and techno-sourced leaving the creative lawyers in greater demand than ever before.

Heeding the warnings of Kessler and Watson will serve the legal profession and the clients it serves extremely well. For example, turning the project management of activities and resources over to the process efficiency of computer systems will allow the creative lawyers greater freedom to build their professional resume, provide innovative solutions to client problems, improve their business portfolio and add value to their firms and their clients.

They will also begin to enjoy their world of professional achievement much more than merely working harder at doing what computers do best.

Take that, Watson!

Much will be written about the origins and the consequences of the decisions made by the organizers of the Tahrir Square uprising that changed not only Egypt, but the world. Although the Cairo revolution has now achieved its initially implausible goal of ousting Hosnir Mubarak from his tyrannical post, creating a democracy in the wake of this week’s events is another matter entirely.  We can only watch and cheer on the fledgling democratic spermatozoa as it seeks its illusive unfertilized egg in hopes of creating a zygote with some potential for sustainable life.

Among the many astonishing lessons the Tahrir demonstrations teach us about strategic approaches to change in complex adaptive systems (See Complex Adaptive Systems: Why Hierarchy is Dead), one is the power of the flat organization.  Hierarchies bent on retaining power require cumbersome bureaucracies of command and control which are dependent on the coercive influence of individuals in each descending level of the organization.  Individuals recoil at the loss of their freedom to choose.

In contrast, flat organizations are motivated by far more powerful influences than fear.  Autonomy, purpose and mastery are more influential by far than holding on to a position or the pay grade one occupies.  (See Daniel Pink’s Drive.)  Hierarchies work through the status they confer and the ascending emoluments of power they create.  All that crumbles in the face of flat organizations where all are empowered equally and given autonomy to achieve greater purposes than maintaining the status quo.

This dynamic shift in power in Cairo was achieved in the two weeks leading up to January 25, 2011.  Emboldened by the amazing events in Tunisia following the fall of a cruel dictator and his culture of fear, a dozen young Egyptians outwitted the feared security forces of Mubarak as they planned a demonstration which was “off the grid”.  As reported by the Wall Street Journal, it was a secret rally that sparked an uprising.

Meeting in the living room of one of the young revolutionary’s mother, the planners created a diversionary tactic which dispatched the President’s security forces to 20 sites across Cairo. The police were sent to dispel “flash mobs” of protesters organized to gather following prayers at pre-established sites near mosques around the city.  However, the site which was not publicized for the benefit of security force reaction was a candy store near a slum section of the city.  The poor youth gathered unmolested by police and marched on Tahrir Square which was unsuspected and unprotected.

A revolution was born.  The power of flat was demonstrated.  Hierarchy was unable to catch up and ultimately has succumbed to its ponderous reliance on the status quo and the coercive use of power.  The hope of democracy has been ignited into a spark of life.

Go spermatozoa, go!

We must allow the man some dignity.  He was a war hero and even though I do not support his governance, he must not be humiliated.

The American reporter seemed stunned.  She pressed the man stating that the President was not respected and the people wanted him to leave now.  The American went further speculating that his announcement may have been a ploy to remain in power long enough to set up a transition that benefited the ruling party.  The Egyptian agreed that these were all possibilities.  But, the man replied:

We MUST allow him to save face.  We have no right to embarrass him.

To the American reporter (and to many Westerners), this argument seems trivial.  American politicians routinely embarrass people as a matter of course.  We can’t imagine “letting someone off the hook”  just so they wouldn’t be public shamed.  But, the reporter missed a strong cultural cue.  In many societies, Eastern and Middle Eastern in particular, allowing someone personal dignity is a key component in relationship and conflict.  In these cultures, if even if you get your way, you lose if you humiliate your opponent.

There is much we have to learn.  Even though Westerners don’t value this worldview as a culture, we value it individually.  No one wants to be humiliated.  No one needs to be shamed in a loss.  Even when we are put in competitive environments, it is incumbent on us to treat others respectfully.  We allow people to save face, even if they don’t deserve it.

Perhaps, it is best if President Mubarak steps down immediately, but whatever happens, I have learned much from this man.  If an Egyptian who is watching his beloved country crumble around him can provide that grace to a 30-year leader of a regime, can I not treat my boss, co-workers, employees, service workers, and family with the same kindness?

The scenes are rivoting.  The meaning unclear.  As rocks fly, men on horses and camels charge the crowd and homemade bombs explode, supporters of the government seek to disrupt the power of people clamoring for freedom while the most powerful army in the Middle East watches without response.  Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen.  Who’s next?

A regional movement without a leader.  At one time the leader might have been Qaddafi, Hussein, Nasser or Arafat.  Voices without a spokesperson clamor for a new order.  The spokesmen who have attempted to fill the power vacuum have not succeeded to this point in speaking the mind of the people in the streets.  Apparently committed to peaceful protest, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children remain unmoved, insisting on freedom, dignity and a culture of collaboration.  They are clearly willing to sacrifice their life and liberty for something more fundamental than comfort and security.

“[P]rotesters offered an alternative, their empowerment standing as possibly the most remarkable legacy of a people who often lamented their apathy.” Anthony Shadid in today’s New York Times cites a regional awakening in search of a leader.  He quotes a woman in Cairo as she joins the mass expression of  hope, “I’m fighting for my freedom,” Noha al-Ustaz said as she broke bricks on the curb. “For my right to express myself. For an end to oppression. For an end to injustice.”

This uprising in Arab nations, each more or less friendly to U.S. interests, seems to involve far more than geopolitical alliances or religious purity.  The cries for freedom from tyranny recall other movements in search of a leader.  Our own U.S. revolution is certainly one.  However, even in our history, cries for freedom rang out from peaceful protest to change slavery, civil rights and other denials of human dignity.

As cited in this space earlier (See: The End of Coercive Power: Really?) the death of fundamentalism has been predicted by much wiser minds.  Hierarchy which exists to deny the universal human need for dignity, autonomy and purpose cannot survive.  Autocratic leadership in business, government or religion will meet its end at the hands of people who will regain their autonomy by any means possible, peaceful or otherwise.

Add to the deep human longing for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” the power of the Internet, autocrats beware.  Tyrants be warned.  The capacity for instant communication to mobilize the masses in the face of oppression changes everything.  The first line of defense in today’s battle for the allegiance of an oppressed people is “shut down the Internet”.  The thinking is, “prevent them from sharing ideas and the narrative of freedom, and the demonstrations will end.”  If the autocrats can prevent “mass collaboration” the tyranny can last a little longer.  But not much longer.  (See: Mass Collaboration)

What is unfolding in Egypt (Tunisia, Jordan and Yemen) represents something far larger than political unrest in an Arab country.  It is less about which brand of Muslim theology will prevail.  It has less to do with geopolitical alliances than basic human needs.  To a conflict manager the headlines reveal something far more telling.

Fundamental change in thinking requires a deep dissatisfaction with the status quo and a new narrative of hope.  Without the new narrative, dissatisfaction is merely unrest waiting for a leader to emerge. When people reach the point that the old normal is unsatisfying, the search for meaning begins.  In Egypt, in business, in religion and education, mass collaboration will unseat stale and self-protective leadership.  Conflict managers can help the dissatisfied protesters, congregants and employees search for new meaning, forge new neuro-pathways and create a new reality out of their own expectations while preserving self-determination.

The path to peace in the Middle East must begin with dissatisfaction, but will only progress through the creation of new narratives which capture the imagination of hope.  With each trans-Atlantic cable, with each diplomatic initiative there must be a new story which connects the present with the possible.  In each troubled business or marriage, there must be a journey from dissatisfaction to discovery in which the next adjacent possibility leads to a new awakening.  This is the wonderfully challenging and rewarding work of conflict management.

In all these conflicts, watch as the outcomes take shape through the visioning of leaders who can articulate the new narrative which satisfies the hunger of mass collaboration.  Occasionally, the process of transformational change gets valuable assistance from peacemakers who can help the participants in conflict visualize their own path to peace.  Such is the moment in Cairo.

Benjamin Disraeli

About 125 Nashville residents gathered last night on the 27th floor of the First Tennessee Bank building to explore creating a more peaceful community.  Members of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities sat at mixed tables of eight to socialize, eat a meal and discuss making Middle Tennessee less like the Middle East.  Rabbi Kliel Rose of the West End Synagogue, Imam Mohamed Ahmed of the Nashville Islamic Center and Dr. Lee Camp of the Lipscomb University theology faculty called their respective faith communities to dialog.  In addition, 10 Humphrey’s Fellows from Vanderbilt University attended representing countries including Kenya, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bahrain, India and the Philippines.

It was a remarkable event in many ways.  Most remarkable was the overwhelming desire for more respectful communities.  The conversations were rich and wonderful.  Although dialog was an important focus of the evening, the primary purpose was to create an action plan for building more respectful interfaith relationships and mobilizing the community in opposition to hate and violent rhetoric.

The religious leaders were passionate and articulate in their appeals for respectful dialog.  Imam Mohamed spoke of the irony that the building of a mosque could generate fear in a city where churches can occupy all four corners of a single intersection.  Rabbi Rose spoke of his desire to create a community where his four children need not question their value or acceptance.  Dr. Camp spoke of his hope that the truths Jesus articulated can be realized in the behavior of his followers.  Truths such as “love your enemy”, “turn the other cheek” and if asked for your shirt, “give them your coat also”.

Of course, this was not a newsworthy event.  Media were invited, but apparently determined more important news items needed coverage.  Muggings, car wrecks, celebrity hyjinks and political hyperbole make for better news than citizens mobilizing for peace.

Ideas were generated for improving interfaith relations.  Ideas as simple as “take the Imam to lunch” and “invite each of your neighbors into your home” were easy steps toward understanding.  Others required greater commitment and resources.  All were the result of thoughtful dialog.

Conflict managers know one thing for certain.  When people with differing views on any topic sit down face to face and seek to listen, the physiology of thought changes.  The path to peace is less focused on treaties than on talk.  Self-promoting monologues are not conversation.  Learning to listen is the power of dismantling stereotypical thinking.

Last night’s event was not an end, but only a beginning.  As most in attendance made specific commitments to engage in action, the journey begins.  If one person left with a better understanding of people unlike herself, the destination is closer.  If one person left more willing to accept that extremism on the part of any faith is not the norm but the exception, the path is more clear.

To all who came, thank you.  The stars shine brighter because you chose to listen.

A church confessional stands draped to protect it from the elements.  A sanctuary is empty and unused.  The Mary Queen of Peace Church in Habbaniya Cece lies vacant in a city which was once vibrant in its diversity and life.  Today Christians are leaving the cities in Iraq and elsewhere due to fundamentalist violence despite living for generations in peace with their Muslim neighbors.  However, not just Christians, but Muslims, Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites all lived together for decades without friction in cities like Habbaniya Cece.  Now it is no longer satisfactory to be an Iraqi, a Muslim, an Arab, a Kurd, Sunni or Shiite.  One must choose the right label to coexist.  Exits from ancestral homes are occurring not based on national origin or religion, but based on the prevailing view of the “correct” perspective of faith as enforced by coercion and power.  See: Last Christians Ponder Leaving a Hometown in Iraq.

As tragic as this story is, it is symptomatic of the last gasps of a dying world view.  As Harvey Cox proclaimed in The Future of Faith, “fundamentalism is dead”  That is not to say that fundamentalism has been eradicated.  Instead, when threatened, power fights back with an unequaled vengeance.  The rise of terrorism born of fundamental belief is evidence of its death struggle.  However, it cannot survive as a prevailing political force.

Habbaniya Cece demonstrates why this is true.  When the circle of acceptance is drawn in ever decreasing size, eventually only I stand inside its permissive bounds.  And I have doubts about even me.  Absolute agreement on every “jot and tittle” is impossible.  Our ability to comprehend absolute truth requires us to accommodate our differences and learn how to generate dialog about the things on which we disagree in the pursuit of more complete understanding.  Fundamentalism make the faulty assumption that there is no room for diversity.

Once we accept that diversity is the nature of life and all living things, we are forced to discover how to accommodate and explore the differences.  Doing so requires us to embrace and learn to appreciate the differences in the search for relationship among opposing thought.

Neuroscience is teaching us that the brain processes the conflict of disagreement by learning how to listen and seek understanding.  Fundamentalism as a brain function operates at the level of fear (fight/flight/freeze) in the brain regions of the amygdala (autonomic) and hypothalamus (emotions) as unconscious “thought” processes.  Higher level thinking which occurs at the frontal cortex of the brain can assimilate contrary ideas and create meaning from the tensions of opposing thought.  The path to the frontal cortex requires discussion, dialog and respectful listening.  Thinking people are not victims of their emotions and the reptilian responses to conflict.  Physiologically, respectful conversation changes the thought processes of the brain and invokes frontal cortex thinking which is creative and prone to problem solving.

Disagreement is the first level of conflict which if not addressed can escalate through increasingly hostile responses to the point of violence.  Fundamentalism permits no disagreement.  Difference of opinion becomes an enemy which must be denied or destroyed.  Failing to address disagreement is the path to increased conflict and ultimately the violent use of force to eliminate the potential for divergent thought.

In contrast, those who promote peace are proponents of dialog and discussion.  Moving people out of fear and into executive level thinking is the work of conflict managers and peacemakers.  Fundamentalists are threatened by conversation, sharing ideas and seeking agreement.  That is why they cannot survive.  They are victims of their own primitive thinking.

Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto and countless others have given their lives in the pursuit of peaceful, thoughtful dialog.  Others will follow.  Although many will die in the pursuit of peaceful co-existence, the alternative to respectful consultation which seeks understanding stands no chance of survival.  Fundamentalists of any persuasion, whether Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Jew, destroy life and their own prospects for living in the process.  Fundamentalism is not sustainable.

Will we chose thoughtful dialog, or will we run everyone out of town with whom we disagree?  The answer should be obvious.

I recently had the privilege of meeting with the Executive Vice President of a major medical center whose title encompassed responsibility for strategic initiatives.  He said of himself, “I have become a perpetual change agent.”  In health care there is simply no option.  However, in what industry or profession today is maintaining the status quo ante a prescription for anything but irrelevance?

As resistant as most of us are to the suggestion of perpetual change, innately we know the absence of change is death.  Living entities will always be changing or they will cease to exist.  The only question is whether the change is moving us in a positive or a negative direction.  Positive change is innovation and improvement.  Negative change is decline and deterioration.  What this “perpetual change agent” understood is that because change is inevitable, being the proponent for positive change will advance the organization’s interests and those of all who labor in it.

A great piece posted this week on the Gallop Management Journal adds some significant instruction on managing change in organizations.  It is human nature to resist and fear change.  Change challenges our desire for clarity and control.  Change breeds uncertainty and uncertainty breeds fear of the unknown.  In organizations, the fear of change becomes magnified and exponentially increases resistance.  Complex adaptive systems are “hard wired” to resist change.

Ushering change in organizations requires conflict competent leadership.   As David Jones in the Gallop journal interview indicates, being a change agent is essential, but not enough.  Organizational change is most effective when it is incremental rather than transformational.  (See Adjacent Possibilities post.)  Changing an organization’s “stripes” is extremely difficult work and should only be attempted when the organization’s livelihood or survival is at stake.

More commonly, change amounts to constant improvement on the current state of affairs.  Incremental change is the most effective method of innovation,  but still leads most people to exclaim, “Will change never end!”  Of course, the answer is “No, the alternative to change is unacceptable.”  Change agents must constantly encourage, empower and equip people for the inevitability of change in their organizations.

Command and control organizations are the least well equipped to effect change.  Unless the people responsible for implementing and maintaining organizational change are autonomous, internally accountable and self-motivated, change will be resisted successfully.  A workforce which is not trusted and resourced for success cannot implement change.  Most change initiatives fail not because of an ineffective change agent, but due to the absence of a leader willing to serve as a change sponsor.

Change sponsors are the organizational leaders who can articulate the vision, reinforce it over time and reassure the organization that the change desired has top level support.  More change initiatives have failed due to uncommitted leaders than any other reason.

When the inevitable heat is generated by unwanted change, change sponsors will either stay the course or run for the hills.  All of us have seen organizations (churches, schools and businesses) in which the leadership announces a new direction only to reveal that when the critical commentary emerges, the engines are reversed.  When that occurs, change in that institution has become virtually impossible from that point forward.  No change agent can possibly succeed.  The change sponsor “didn’t mean it” and the resistance to change was rewarded.

Successful change in complex adaptive systems requires multi-level conflict competence.  The change sponsor must know how to weather the innate organizational resistance to change and opt for survival rather than death of the organization’s capacity to innovate.  The change agent must know how to induce and increase the likelihood of incremental change among those responsible for implementation.  The organization must have systems which encourage the positive processing of conflict heat generated by change.  Finally, the people responsible for change implementation must be provided the requisite level of autonomy and authority to accompany their responsibility and be encouraged to be totally accountable for the outcome of their tasks, good or bad.

The culture of consultation needed for perpetual change in organizations today does not naturally occur.   It requires leadership of the first order.  Change agents and change sponsors must work in close coordination and the system must embrace the resulting conflict in order to process it in healthy fashion.

Although most of us would prefer to press the “no change” button, the rate of change is such today that to do so would insure ejection from the cockpit of a supersonic jet without a parachute.

Don’t press that Easy Button!