I made two points in last week's post related to the LRA feedback meeting:
1. 'Am I thankful for these efforts? YES.'
2. 'Am I impressed with what I saw and experienced last night? NO!'
I wrote: 'To be fair, I am clearly of a very different mind-set to what makes for the type of leadership, quality of project, and commitment to excellence that I'd like to see in Lonehill.'
By way of explanation and positive input, in my opinion, a community feedback session should see the first 30 minutes showing how our money is being spent (identifying the primary recipients of our revenue flow and their vested interests), the results that have been achieved (critical numbers: e.g contributors, incidents, et al), and follow-up of decisions made from the last meeting (e.g. what happened to the past key-contributor recognition program, and the Junior Council follow-up with Crawford College?).
Short, sweet, to-the-point, open, transparent, effective.
Thereafter, the community should be encouraged to discuss issues that they consider important for leadership to take note of.
1. 'Am I thankful for these efforts? YES.'
2. 'Am I impressed with what I saw and experienced last night? NO!'
I wrote: 'To be fair, I am clearly of a very different mind-set to what makes for the type of leadership, quality of project, and commitment to excellence that I'd like to see in Lonehill.'
By way of explanation and positive input, in my opinion, a community feedback session should see the first 30 minutes showing how our money is being spent (identifying the primary recipients of our revenue flow and their vested interests), the results that have been achieved (critical numbers: e.g contributors, incidents, et al), and follow-up of decisions made from the last meeting (e.g. what happened to the past key-contributor recognition program, and the Junior Council follow-up with Crawford College?).
Short, sweet, to-the-point, open, transparent, effective.
Thereafter, the community should be encouraged to discuss issues that they consider important for leadership to take note of.
This neat graphic from - Crossing the Chasm Book Review - had me thinking that perhaps we are again approaching the edge of the chasm which seperates the unique and visionary community ideal we saw for ourselves back in 2000... as opposed to the typical apathetic residents association malaise that exists in most mediocre community-type associations.
As I play over in my mind the magnificent work put into establishing this Lonehill initiative back in 2000 (and as to why it set itself so clearly apart from any previous resident/community association projects going before it), I am convinced that it grew in an open, transparent, mass-collaborative mode to the lip of the chasm (at the time of the marketing tender debacle) where, in my opinion, an autocratic managerial-style adopted by the then LRA leaders made some silly behind-closed-doors ego-centric decisions that saw the entire project falling headlong into the chasm.
The depth of this fall was identified at the AGM debacle of last year and it has taken time for the 'new' LRA board of directors to re-climb all the way back up to the lip of the chasm once again.
Sadly, at last week's 'feedback' session, I detected many of the very same autocratic-style ego-centric warning signs surfacing that may again have our Lonehill Community Initiative slipping back into the chasm once again. My biggest concern was for the almost unilateral style of decision-making by the few on behalf of the community... without first asking the community for its input. As discovered last year, such unilateral decisions can lead to serious embarrassment for the instigators and can result in a considerable waste of time and money should the community want to undo and/or unravel them.
Now, please note, that this is not an attack on any one or more individual/s, it is one person's opinion of what he believes should be happening at leadership level to 'cross the chasm' to the type of community initiative that we are all looking for. In this opinion there is plenty of room for stakeholders with differing opinions and/or vested interests to be settled by means of mature debate, open & participative decision-making, and mutually-beneficial community solutions.
I will try to make it as simple as ..1 ..2 ..3:
1. Allow DISCIPLINED People To Flourish - these are passionate people who will align our community goals with their own goals and who can deliver. It means having people in management that do not need to be highly-managed. It means removing those in management who cannot or will not deliver. It means instituting SMART objectives and deliverables with accountabilities and responsibilities clearly designated. It means actively encouraging those with voluntary and/or vested interest desires to establish and drive mutually-beneficial community projects. It means allowing a process for all stakeholders to participate in developing and/or selecting the projects they want to see as priorities.
2. Create a culture of DISCIPLINED Thought. 'Create A Culture Where The Truth Can Be Heard'... where openness, transparency and fact are sacrosanct... and where opinion is widely sought and encouraged.
3. Allow the above people and culture to stimulate DISCIPLINED Action. Eradicate all bureaucratic hurdles - what Tom Peters' identifies in these two quotes from his slides as 'The Management Paradox':
"Ninety percent of what we call 'management' consists of making it difficult for people to get things done" - Peter Drucker
"There's a war on between the people who are trying to do something and the people who are trying to keep them from doing something wrong" - Bill Creech
Here's my concern, I don't believe that current leadership have yet bought into the above 3 simple factors.
Disciplined People, Disciplined Thought, Disciplined Action... three simple factors identified by one Jim Collins that can take the Lonehill Community Initiative from mediocre, to good... to GREAT. But it takes exceptional leadership to unlock and encourage these three simple factors. As another slide from Tom Peter's 2007 collection says: 'Leaders "SERVE’ people. Period.” - Anon
So whilst I am extremely thankful for the return to the basic levels of management over expected service-provider deliverables, I expect much more of our leadership who have a moral duty to override their own emotions, assumptions and pre-conceived notions to act in the very best interest of our entire community. This cannot be achieved without stimulating the widest, committed, participatory input of the most passionate and critical community stakeholders who WANT to provide input - and understanding that some may well be of VERY different mind-set and opinion to those currently on the LRA.
Leadership is simple... and, as mentioned in previous posts, our Priority No. 1 Strategy should be simple:
As I play over in my mind the magnificent work put into establishing this Lonehill initiative back in 2000 (and as to why it set itself so clearly apart from any previous resident/community association projects going before it), I am convinced that it grew in an open, transparent, mass-collaborative mode to the lip of the chasm (at the time of the marketing tender debacle) where, in my opinion, an autocratic managerial-style adopted by the then LRA leaders made some silly behind-closed-doors ego-centric decisions that saw the entire project falling headlong into the chasm.
The depth of this fall was identified at the AGM debacle of last year and it has taken time for the 'new' LRA board of directors to re-climb all the way back up to the lip of the chasm once again.
Sadly, at last week's 'feedback' session, I detected many of the very same autocratic-style ego-centric warning signs surfacing that may again have our Lonehill Community Initiative slipping back into the chasm once again. My biggest concern was for the almost unilateral style of decision-making by the few on behalf of the community... without first asking the community for its input. As discovered last year, such unilateral decisions can lead to serious embarrassment for the instigators and can result in a considerable waste of time and money should the community want to undo and/or unravel them.
Now, please note, that this is not an attack on any one or more individual/s, it is one person's opinion of what he believes should be happening at leadership level to 'cross the chasm' to the type of community initiative that we are all looking for. In this opinion there is plenty of room for stakeholders with differing opinions and/or vested interests to be settled by means of mature debate, open & participative decision-making, and mutually-beneficial community solutions.
I will try to make it as simple as ..1 ..2 ..3:
1. Allow DISCIPLINED People To Flourish - these are passionate people who will align our community goals with their own goals and who can deliver. It means having people in management that do not need to be highly-managed. It means removing those in management who cannot or will not deliver. It means instituting SMART objectives and deliverables with accountabilities and responsibilities clearly designated. It means actively encouraging those with voluntary and/or vested interest desires to establish and drive mutually-beneficial community projects. It means allowing a process for all stakeholders to participate in developing and/or selecting the projects they want to see as priorities.
2. Create a culture of DISCIPLINED Thought. 'Create A Culture Where The Truth Can Be Heard'... where openness, transparency and fact are sacrosanct... and where opinion is widely sought and encouraged.
3. Allow the above people and culture to stimulate DISCIPLINED Action. Eradicate all bureaucratic hurdles - what Tom Peters' identifies in these two quotes from his slides as 'The Management Paradox':
"Ninety percent of what we call 'management' consists of making it difficult for people to get things done" - Peter Drucker
"There's a war on between the people who are trying to do something and the people who are trying to keep them from doing something wrong" - Bill Creech
Here's my concern, I don't believe that current leadership have yet bought into the above 3 simple factors.
Disciplined People, Disciplined Thought, Disciplined Action... three simple factors identified by one Jim Collins that can take the Lonehill Community Initiative from mediocre, to good... to GREAT. But it takes exceptional leadership to unlock and encourage these three simple factors. As another slide from Tom Peter's 2007 collection says: 'Leaders "SERVE’ people. Period.” - Anon
So whilst I am extremely thankful for the return to the basic levels of management over expected service-provider deliverables, I expect much more of our leadership who have a moral duty to override their own emotions, assumptions and pre-conceived notions to act in the very best interest of our entire community. This cannot be achieved without stimulating the widest, committed, participatory input of the most passionate and critical community stakeholders who WANT to provide input - and understanding that some may well be of VERY different mind-set and opinion to those currently on the LRA.
Leadership is simple... and, as mentioned in previous posts, our Priority No. 1 Strategy should be simple:
SECURITY ==> VISIBILITY & VIGILANCE ==> FUNDING
Security is a function of the quality of proactive Visibility & Vigilance of our security force on the ground which in turn is a function of the inflow of funds from local stakeholders and elsewhere.
Leadership's role should be to say: how can we stimulate and encourage people to develop concepts and ideas to underpin our strategy?
Let's face it, one of the BIGGEST successes in this community began with the step taken to initiate and drive the Lonehill Security Action Group in 2000 - which, through a process of openly-encouraged participation, attracted many contributors within the community to build the platform that we have today, having generated over R100 million in revenue flow through the LRA.
As one who has been there, done that and got all the T-shirts in the above community process as a volunteer for four-and-half years it is my firm opinion from my experience at the front-line that the process slips into the chasm when community-input is not sought, avoided and/or ignored, and when autocratic egos take unilateral decisions behind closed doors believing that 'they' know what's best for the community.
I'm a believer that the community is a lot smarter than such people give credit for. To repeat: "Leaders ‘SERVE’ people. Period.”
Let's face it, one of the BIGGEST successes in this community began with the step taken to initiate and drive the Lonehill Security Action Group in 2000 - which, through a process of openly-encouraged participation, attracted many contributors within the community to build the platform that we have today, having generated over R100 million in revenue flow through the LRA.
As one who has been there, done that and got all the T-shirts in the above community process as a volunteer for four-and-half years it is my firm opinion from my experience at the front-line that the process slips into the chasm when community-input is not sought, avoided and/or ignored, and when autocratic egos take unilateral decisions behind closed doors believing that 'they' know what's best for the community.
I'm a believer that the community is a lot smarter than such people give credit for. To repeat: "Leaders ‘SERVE’ people. Period.”
Regards
Trevor Nel - 011 705-2790
Lonehill Resident
No comments:
Post a Comment