i blogged a while back about seth godin’s linchpin and several of the ideas that hit home with me. it’s his best work and the book really resonated with me. i’m now reading switch by dan and chip heath and the idea of resistance has come up again, and it’s looked at in the same way. in the same way that godin talks about resistance as a force that disables thrashing or shipping, the heaths see it, too, as an obstacle to overcome but this time in the context of change. clarity dissolves resistance, so simple and so true. this line comes after a piece about scripting moves to stay the course during times of change, but it works in the context of linchpin as well. when the resistance is in the form of someone, often clarity will be able to disarm them. to continue the author mashup even futher, lencioni uses fable to drive home very simple points that often/always end in some sort of success. perhaps what lencioni is doing is offering a bit of clarity to a situation, thus making the solution seem almost intuitive where at one point it was completely hidden. a friend of mine questioned my reading choices a while back, i suppose it would appear that my reading for pleasure could easily be misconstrued as reading for work. i’m not sure if they are right or not. if i were still in the classroom would these books appeal to me? it saddens me to think that i wouldn’t read/enjoy them if i hadn’t left the classroom but that may be the case. i like books that make me think. i’ve had a terrific run of books and authors that seem to connect with me and with each other and speak strongly to the work i do and the work that i might someday want to do.
Tag Archives: lencioni
having now been to my first ‘end of the year’ off site meeting with my team i have a few opportunities unique to me. in lencioni’s death by meeting the focus ends up being on the different types of meetings, off sites being one of them, and i feel like i can now have a greater understanding of what those meetings could/should be about. if i had to characterize ours, i would have to say that innovation seemed to be the thread that ran throughout the two days. several ideas were thrown around, but one in particular resonated with a passage in ‘tribes’ by seth godin, that i came across just the other night. (yes, i’m STILL reading it)
odds are that growth and success are now inextricably linked to breaking the old rules and setting your organization’s new rules loose in an industry too afraid of change
there are lots about this quote that give me pause, and i’ll start from the end. is education an industry afraid of change? let’s call that rhetorical on many fronts. the beginning presupposes that the only way to grow and succeed in today’s world is the break rules that don’t seem to work. is it? that’s the only way? inextricably, i like that word, but not in this context. or maybe i do. we can’t avoid the confrontation, at this point, of new solutions to new problems in a climate that doesn’t encourage that type of innovation that may just solves many of our woes. it certainly makes it seem dire!
i broke down and found/bought/read lencioni’s book regrading miserable jobs. i’ve blogged about several of his other books as well and this one was very different. where his previous installments (although i’m not reading them in any sort of order) seem to focus on a more corporate business culture, this one has wider implications of why people don’t like their job. without going into his whole theory, which is surprisingly brief with only 3 main points, i want to talk about something he asserts regarding measurables. the idea behind using measurables is to be able to gauge how you are doing, instant feedback that you can manage; indicators of sorts that would help you know what you’ve accomplished. measurables are great, lord knows education is full of measurables, even if we tend to over-measure and/or focus on measuring the wrong things. the part that has me thinking is the idea of the absence of measurables makes it impossible to know how you are doing. my problem probably stems out of the idea that not all data needs to be quantitative and i think that is where this theory takes us. i think its possible to qualitatively tell if your job is going well, but i realize that’s soft in the eyes of many. boiling everything down to numbers is dangerous and can sometimes paint an inaccurate picture. i’m sure the author would tell me that i’m focusing on the wrong measurables if this were the case. i found his other points a bit more valid, but at the risk of “ruining” an interesting read…