Perception Paradigms: Do you see what I see?

So I was supposed to fly out to Denver at 6am this morning but got bumped until 10:30. So I’ve got some time to kill! As I sit here I can see a FedEx jet across the tarmac and I’m reminded of a conversation I had with my fourteen year old daughter Amanda a few weeks ago.

We were coming home from soccer practice and stopped right behind a FedEx van when she said: “You know what Dad? I never noticed the arrow in the FedEx logo until just a few weeks ago. Isn’t that funny?” An arrow in the FedEx logo? I didn’t know what she was talking about and I told her as much. She showed me where to look and … wow! There it was! I could see it too. I had seen that logo for much of my life and I had never noticed the arrow. What about you? Can you see it? Now, whenever I see the familiar logo, my eyes are immediately drawn to the arrow. Yet for the past thirty years I had never noticed it.

It reminded me of the story Stephen Covey tells in “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” when he displayed the line drawing of a woman to his class. Half of his students saw an attractive young woman and the other half saw an old peasant woman. All the students were looking at the exact same picture and yet they saw two very different things. He used this analogy to set up a discussion about paradigms. Just as my daughter showed me how to look at the logo, when one half of Covey’s class showed the other half how to look at the picture of the woman, they, like me, had a paradigm shift – an ‘aha’ moment.

Think about any political campaign - especially the current presidential campaign. Both parties love to paint the opposing side in the most demagogue-ish (if I can use that word) terms. If you buy the Democrat position, you may think all Republicans are evil, warmongering, capitalists who want to poison the water and pollute the air. If you side with the Republicans, you may believe all Democrats are "soft on terrorists" marxists who want to give condoms to our kindergartners. Well, the truth is obviously much different than the broad brush strokes applied by political pundits. But at the root of political demagoguery are paradigms. We each have our own world view and that view informs our thoughts, opinions and behaviors. My world view might be different than yours and yet we both think we're right. Paradigm shifts can happen when we take the time to look at a situation from another person's point of view.

A colleague of mine shared a story in a recent training class. A few years back he belonged to a city council that was evenly split along liberal/conservative lines. More often than not the six-member council would deadlock in a 3 - 3 tie with the mayor being the tie-breaker. But something interesting began to happen. When the council talked about the end-result (Covey would call this "beginning with the end in mind") they realized there was much more upon which they agreed than disagreed. The disagreements only came in how they would get to their agreed upon result. That sounds so simple. Yet for this city council it made all the difference in the world. Knowing that they all wanted the same thing elevated the discussion from fractious political debate to a much more productive "give and take" approach that resulted in the council achieving many of there goals. After all, issues like crime, public safety, quality schools and a healthy economy are not political issues. They are important to everyone regardless of political affiliation. But it took a paradigm shift for the city council to see it. It took a light bulb going off in each of the council members' heads that said "Aha, these folks all want the same thing I want!"

Paradigm shifts don't mean we'll magically change our opinions or deeply held beliefs. To the contrary, it may make us feel even more strongly about those things. But being open minded enough to hear something out that at the outset seems completely disagreeable may help us understand where someone else is coming from and may ultimately lead to the kind of discussion that leads to a win-win solution.

How's the Weather?

Okay, it is not my intention to get political here but I think this is worth reading. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, recently had this to say about global warming. I think it's important to hear him out as it looks like our nation is on the verge of making some stupendously idiotic moves in the name of "stopping global warming". You can read his remarks here:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html

Employee Development: Picasso or Cezanne? Fleetwood Mac or the Eagles? You Decide!

Last week I had the privilege of attending the annual ASTD (American Society of Training and Development) convention in San Diego. One of the highlights of the conference was a keynote address given by Malcolm Gladwell. He's the author of "Tipping Point" and "Blink" - two excellent books I highly recommend. In his address Gladwell explored the concept of 'genius' using several fascinating examples. Let me try to paraphrase:

The artist Picasso burst on to the modern art scene in his early twenties. He was almost immediately revered as a genius and people clamored to purchase his work. The paintings Picasso made in his twenties and thirties are worth about four times as much as those from his later years. Paul Cezanne, on the other hand, was a "starving artist" for years and years until, finally, in the later years of his life, people began to recognize his artistic genius. His paintings from the end of his career are worth about eight times as much as those from his younger years. Both Picasso and Cezanne are viewed as geniuses but they achieved that status in very different ways and on very different time-tables.

The rock group Fleetmac Mac is best known for their mid-70's, Stevie Nicks-Lindsay Buckingham sound heard on their grammy winning album "Rumors". But what many folks don't realize is that "Rumors" was their 16th album! The group had actually started in the mid sixties with drummer Mick Fleetwood, bassist John McVie (the "Mac" part of Fleetwood Mac) and guitarist Peter Green. Fleetwood Mac slogged it out for over a decade with a revolving door of musicians but it wasn't until right before the "Rumors" album that the group really took off. Fleetwood Mac might be viewed as the classic rock equivalent of Cezanne. The Eagles might be viewed as the Picassos of rock and roll. They formed in 72 or 73 and were shortly at the top of the charts with their first album. By 1975 they were one of the biggest bands in the business. Like Fleetwood Mac, the Eagles are considered musical geniuses from that time period. Again, the Fleetwood Mac/Eagles scenario illustrates two different types of genius. One type, like Picasso, sees success quickly. The other type, like Cezanne, takes longer to achieve that success but when it does the results are worth the wait.

Gladwell points out that in today's music business Fleetwood Mac wouldn't have a chance. No label would be willing to give a band a decade to develop their genius. He also observes that, unfortunately, that shortsightedness often spills over to the business world as well. I agree.

Do we sometimes overlook or even lose someone who has tremendous long-term potential because they aren't a 'Picasso' right out of the gate? Perhaps what organizations need are leaders who approach talent management with the eyes of a long-term investor rather than those of a "day trader". While companies will always appreciate the 'Picassos' on their team, perhaps they should learn to appreciate the 'Cezannes' as well. After all, 50 million Fleetwood Mac fans can't be wrong....