Sun • Dec 20th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 0
do you know what you’re good at and are you good at what you do?
I spent most of two days last week with the staff of the international development agency I’m leading in a self-assessment facilitated by USAID representatives. Through our organization we respond to human suffering in projects in the U.S. and around the world.
During the audit I was reminded that in addition to focusing on doing good things we must pay attention to our organizational infrastructure. It’s like checking the condition of a vehicle before driving to a destination.
Among other things we were asked to evaluate our strategic plan. Where are we going? Do we have a plan to get there? Does planning guide our activities or do we simply respond to the needs or opportunities of the moment?
We were asked about “branding.” That is, what are we known for? How can we become the best in our field? And how do we communicate who we are and what we are good at?
All good questions. The take-away for me was in the challenge put before us – to become the best in our field.
This doesn’t mean that we become competitive with other organizations doing good work. But whether we like it or not we are constantly being compared to others, not in what we do but how good we are what we do. Comparison is not necessarily competition. The question is not whether we are better than others but do we know what we’re good at and are we good at what we do.
Leaders and followers within any organization are responsible for the quality as well as the purpose of their work. We were reminded that our idealism is counterproductive if it blinds us to the need to ask hard questions. We learned that idealism apart from the “how” issues will likely produce unintended negative consequences. Whatever our mission, if we are to succeed we must assess how well we are doing. Good intentions are not enough.
Other than in competitive activities, organizations, enterprises and leaders can become known or legendary for being the best in a particular field or niche. Since no two organizations, or individuals are exactly alike, there are unlimited possibilities for being the best in a field.
Sun • Dec 6th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 2
reflections on Justice
the new book by Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel
Randy Cohen is one of my favorite columnists. He writes as the “Ethicist” in the New York Times Magazine. Each week he responds to a question sent to him about a moral dilemma. The question this week is whether or not an employer may refuse to hire someone solely because of his or her political persuasion. The answer is no. I like Cohen because he takes sides and takes time to explain why.
His column is a weekly reminder that every day we are faced with vexing moral dilemmas. What’s the right thing to do?
That’s the question explored by Michael J. Sandel in his new book – Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do?, Professor Sandel—reported to be the most popular professor at Harvard, and perhaps in America—is a skilled teacher, able to turn a lecture hall with several hundred students into the intimacy of a small seminar. His lectures on Moral Reasoning based on the book can be seen on on PBS and at the Harvard website, www.harvardjustice.org.
The subtitle question– “What’s the Right Thing To Do?” reminds me of the often-repeated distinction between management and leadership. Management is doing things right, leadership is doing right things.
In his teaching on justice or moral reasoning Sandel touches on the major public issues of the day including affirmative action, same-sex marriage, abortion, a military draft vs. a volunteer or paid military, immigration, welfare and work.
Debates on these public justice or moral issues, he explains, are driven by presuppositions or concepts, which guide our personal and civic behavior. Which encourages us to ask: on what basis do we make our decisions?
In his book and lectures he identifies the strengths and weaknesses of three historical presuppositions that inform justice discussions – welfare, freedom and virtue. These concepts, he says, determine how people as individuals as well as citizens decide on doing right things.
Welfare or utilitarianism, understood as “the greatest happiness for the greatest number,” is a fundamental motivation for democracy and market economies. Prosperity it is believed promotes the general welfare. A fair distribution of wealth is thus a primary concern of utilitarianism.
Freedom or libertarianism connects justice to individual rights. The U.S Bill of Rights names liberties such as freedom of speech and religion that the majority may not violate.
“Some of the most hard-fought political arguments of our time,” Sandel writes, “take place between the two rival camps—the laisser-faire camp and the fairness camp.”
The third way is “justice bound up with virtue and the good life.” He contends, for instance, that the controversies over abortion and same-sex marriage are more than conflicts over personal freedom. Religious teachings on the beginning of life and the purpose of marriage must be considered in crafting public policy.
How are leaders who are called upon to do right things as well as do things right to act? In his concluding chapter, “Justice and the Common Good,” Sandel teaches us that doing the right thing, or justice is always about values.
Just or moral leadership is more than achieving measureable outcomes for organizational growth or market share. And Sandel reminds us of what Immanuel Kant taught: just, or moral, living, as well as leading, is more than doing the right thing, it is in doing the right thing for the right reason.