On the heartbeat podcast, host Claire Lew has a question that she uses to ask to each guest:
what is one thing or several things that you wish you would’ve learned earlier as a leader?
While listening to the podcast I've often wondered how I would answer that question, and I've had a few back and forth , until I settled on the classic the higher you rise the less power you have. You have more influence, but less power.
This seems intuitively true to to me, and it does reflect in the experiences I've made in my personal journey, from individual contributor, to team lead, to lead of leads.
However, I always had this sense of guilt about it, because it states a true condition but not how to operate within this condition. Sure, one way to address it is to write,write, write or repeat the messages, but those seem means, rather than an end. Instead I was looking for an end, to justify those means and to use them coherently.
The answer came to me, rather unexpected, as these things always tend to do. I'm not sure how I came to find this small bit on wisdom on the internet, I suppose it was via one of the people I follow on twitter, most likely somebody having to do with Wardley maps. That, unfortunately, does not narrow down the list, nor does twitter search help, so I'm going to have to leave the snippet un-attributed. If I come across its author I'll amend this post.
Anyways, the bit of wisdom is in the following evernote clip. I reproduce the salient part below, for your own convenience as well as for archaeological purposes:
The condition–consequence approach, according to Jullien, is a Chinese concept of efficacy that teaches one to learn how to allow an effect to come about: not to aim for it directly, but to implicate it as a consequence. Unlike the means–end approach, which typically involves a predetermined plan that is liable to disintegrate when put into in practice, the condition–consequence approach is designed to leave as little room for chance as possible. Once a situation has begun to develop, it allows no other way out: one “is bound to go along with it”—the outcome is predetermined.
To make this possible: a good general intervenes upstream in the process, having already identified favorable factors before they have actually developed such that the situation evolves in a suitable direction. When the accumulated potential reveals itself to be completely favorable, the general engages resolutely in battle, and success is assured.
Eureka! Now I know how to frame my actions to compensate for my lack of power. I will leverage my influence to ask the questions, to understand the scenario, remove the obstacles, and create the space for the desired outcome to materialize, without it having ever been sought out directly.
Now my answer to Claire's question is no longer an empty shell, a blog post title without content, but is fully developed in my mind, and I could write and talk about it. Until I'll decide to change my mind again.
For the curious, it took me perhaps two years to put one and the other together. Be patient, but be open.
Comments