Playing the long game

30 years

“We shall not know if our post-war efforts to bring democracy and freedom to the peoples of Europe and the Far East have been successful for perhaps twenty or thirty years from now.?If thirty years from today Germany, Italy and Japan are stable, functioning democracies with thriving economies and decent standards of living . . . perhaps then?and?only?then shall we be able to proclaim our efforts were triumphant.”

George Marshall, US Secretary of State, 1946.

Marshall ended up winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his vision of a prosperous post-war Europe. And, he accompanied his vision with money: he rejected?a plan to strip Europe of its industrial capacity?and, instead,?the Plan that bore his name?proposed the reverse. It said this: spend big (over $100b in today’s money) to rebuild war-torn regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, improve European prosperity — and prevent the spread of communism.

This is just one of the singular, high-investment, multi-lateral and long-term visions of the past century that have truly changed hundreds of millions of lives.

And, there are others of similar scale. Think about the elimination of polio (by WHO, UNICEF, CDC and the Gates Foundation), the Montreal Protocol’s closure of the hole in the ozone layer, and the Chinese government’s raising 400 million people to middle-class economic standards in 20 years.

None of these is uncontroversial, all had difficult and lengthy gestations, and none were the brainchild of one person. But they?are?symbolic of our ability to think long-term and galvanise impressive levels of support for objectives that matter enough.

Question: What ‘long game’ plays are you making — what’s your 30 year plan?

Too much — and not enough

This week I bumped into an old client, Daryl. By that, I mean Daryl participated in courses I ran a couple of decades ago. Back then, I was mostly a ‘front-of-room’ trainer, often in leadership ‘soft skills’ like, “How to give feedback to defensive people” and “How to get on at work with people you don’t like”.

What I noticed, time and time again, was that leaders would ask me to run training for an entire group, but when I asked, “Why do you want to do this?” their answer made it clear the need was directed at one or two individuals. I wondered, “Why don’t they just improve the behaviour of?those?people?”

Daryl went on to say that the training I ran?was?hitting the mark —- only not for the people they needed to target.

Also just this week the weather is becoming autumnal here in Melbourne, and a different acquaintance was telling me how inefficient it is to heat entire rooms, and that a better option would be technology that heats people directly (think heat lamps). Outdoor cafes use something similar by heating small zones at tables, rather than entire areas.

These two conversations were on the same day, and what occurred to me was that they’re both describing the same failure: doing too much for everyone, and not enough for one person in particular.

It got me thinking about the many ways in which organisations strategise in this way: they develop approaches that are ‘all things to all people’, rather than focus on the neediest, the most willing to spend, or the most able to benefit.

Question: In what ways are you doing too much for everyone — and not enough for someone in particular?

Glow and grow

I sometimes use my 12yo son, Jasper, to illustrate a point here, but this afternoon I saw something done brilliantly by his school.

He’s 6 weeks into high school, and it’s time for parent-teacher meetings. They’re quite different from the old school ‘interviews’ that I’m familiar with, as the student is present — and involved. And, each meeting goes for exactly 7 minutes.

I was sceptical about this brevity, until I saw it in action.

They use an approach called ‘glow and grow’. After asking my son to recap some recent content (as a conscious convincer to his parents that he’s learning!), his science teacher said, “I’m now going to tell you what makes you glow, and what can help you grow”. He hastened to add that Jasper is doing really well, and the ‘grow’ component is not criticism —- it’s to take on board if he wants to maximise his potential.

So, his ‘glow’ (in science) was that he learns from feedback, he keeps on top of the work, and he engages other students in discussing the work. His ‘grow’ was that to become an independent learner by the end of high school, he should use the resources provided, and help others who maybe aren’t as focussed or as able.

My son was soaking this up — and I asked him afterwards how he felt about the feedback. He said it was 100% accurate and made him feel proud of how he’s adjusting to high school.

But, the 7 minutes made me think about processes we use in organisations to track performance. The problem is that these are often based on thresholds, rather than continua. You either made it, or you didn’t. Traffic light indicators are green (good!), or not (hmmm). That ‘pass:fail’ binary is a relic of my generation’s schooling from decades ago, and I wonder if Jasper’s generation will adopt a more fluid way of judging performance, one that captures motivation by understanding ‘glow’ and ‘grow’ in positive terms.

Question: What are your organisation’s ‘glow’ and ‘grow’ issues?

Please do let me know you’ve enjoyed reading by clicking 'like'. And, drop me a line of response to one or more of the questions I raise this week - I’m truly interested in your answer.

Until next week, appreciate the reduced cancer and polio risks that the last century’s ground-breaking multi-lateral agreements have created, and I’ll be with you next Friday morning.

Andrew