Realist vs. Idealist
by Miki SaxonI received a very irate email taking me to task for saying (in yesterday’s post), “I think that people still prefer their own comfort zone (whatever that might be) and probably always will—the goal is to expand it, since eliminating it is highly unlikely…” After removing the expletives the gist was that as a person supposedly teaching leadership why was I condoning closed-minded attitudes, even bigotry?
Short answer, I’m not, but I’m a realist.
Long answer, I’ve always believed that it’s great to work for an ideal, but you have to function in the real world and the real world is populated by people and people are a long way from ideal—additionally, my ideal is very likely not your ideal, so who chooses? What I consider close-minded or bigoted is very likely another person’s passionate belief—to me there is no “right.” Even when I’m violently opposed to the thoughts expressed, I remember S.G. Tallentyre’s (not Voltaire) comment, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.”
Back to practical.
I first wrote about comfort zones in a column I used to write for Microsoft Development Network (msdn) in 1999 (Hiring in Your Comfort Zone) and the idea hasn’t changed a lot.
Our comfort zone is where we all prefer to do things. People want to spend their time with people like themselves. This isn’t about simple labels, such as race, religion or gender, which are more society’s labels. Our own subjective labels have more to do with schools (Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Cal, etc.), specific professions (not fields), companies (think McKinsey), compensation, attitudes, clothes, etc. It’s how we choose to connect, because, true or not, Yale grads believe they have more in common with other Ivy League alums than with Cal or Columbia. Doctors hang out with doctors, usually those with the same, or similar, specialty or employer, but rarely with nurses or radiology techs. We like enough knowledge commonality so we don’t feel ignorant, but can still learn; we like to be with our “equals.”
It all boils down to, “people like me” (PLM).
And that may be fine in our personal life—but not so fine in our professional life, especially not for managers responsible for hiring. The broader the PLM definition the longer it takes to become noticeable, but it’s usually there if you look for it.
The long-term cost to companies is high. This is especially true when there’s a change in management, since the new person’s PLM rarely matches her predecessor’s.
- When the choice is between the best applicant and PLM, PLM usually wins out, slowly lowering the quality of talent.
- PLM homogenizes the staff; reducing diversity of both thinking and thought (methodology and result) and it’s that diversity that supplies strength, creativity and innovation.
- PLM wreaks havoc on retention efforts and often drives out legacy knowledge.
- PLM hiring may affect just one part of a company or create a ripple effect, e.g., lowered innovation slows product development delaying delivery, crimping sales and keeping the company from achieving its revenue goals.
All of this and much more is the product of a PLM mindset and the narrower the mindset the worse the damage.
Back to what I said at the start, I’m a realist and I do not believe that it’s possible to truly eradicate PLM from your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) more often it’s driven underground making it harder to recognize than when it’s overt.
I do believe that the definition of PLM can be expanded, since MAP is not, or should not be, carved in stone. Rather, like you, it’s vibrant—living, growing, and changing as you live, grow and change.
And, as always, it’s your choice.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:41 am
In the “real world” – the question is has any of us experienced that real work! The Matrix film was an expository of what is still a long standing and unresolvable question about the nature of what is real.
What I take away from your discussion does not answer what I believe is at the heart of the leadership role no less what is real – namely to set the direction and insist that others follow.
All the descriptive information you use is right on! The problem is that each time a major change in how communities are organized someone strikes out in a direction uncharted or supported by the community – Martin Luther – Martin Luther King – on and on.
Leaders, for good reason or not – see the world and take action to move the world to a new place and with new values.
I’ve written some on the subject on my blog http://phronesisinc.net/pridenproductivity and the post I would suggest is on Authentic Leadership.
The difference between our stands is that principles guide and inform the notion of leadership not comfort!
October 19th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Oldude59, First, it’s been long-recognized that “real” is a function of each person’s perceptions, that’s why witnesses always give different accounts of a crime.
But my main disagreement is your statement, “…set the direction and insist that others follow.”
Leaders never insist, they inspire others to follow.
The point of this post was that 1) people prefer their comfort zones, 2) that it’s nearly impossible to eliminate them and 3) that a better goal is to constantly enlarge them.
You say, “someone strikes out in a direction uncharted or supported by the community” citing Marin Luther and martin Luther King. I dislike lists that only present positive examples, Hitler did the same thing. I wrote http://www.mappingcompanysuccess.com/are-ethical-values-set-or-fluid/ in response to another post on authentic leadership.
As to our stands, this post was on a specific topic, not having anything in particular to do with the principles of leadership.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Thanks for responding to my comment – I agree that providing positive list could lead to a false impression of what I meant by “striking out”. As it turns out – “striking out” really has no bearing on the out come for which the impulse was followed – this is a principal argument. In the case of Martin Luther – 10s of thousands died because of his “striking out” – so you are right to question my list.
What I wanted to get across was that the paradox of the individual’s effect for a group or in destruction of the group “should” not be how a leader decides to engage his purpose. I have to admit that my own predisposition is positivist – I think leaders answer to a special “calling”. That calling arises out of my set of core beliefs as to the metaphysical nature or our existence. So I do not think that leads to be a very fruitful debate from either of our stand points.
The uneasiness I feel with your position arises out the intensity of the leader’s intention to take risk to move those comfort zones out well beyond the “enlarge” that could be achieved by simply letting the overall culture do its work. I’m suggesting that a Leader be a “cause” in the action of enlargement not an observer or cheerleader, but a force. Maybe you think that kind of force can only come from some other sector of the community, I hope not. Because, maybe you suggest that corporate leaders should simply focus on stockholder’s return on investment.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:55 am
The most any leader can do with regards to another’s MAP is to show their passion and set an example, they can’t force compliance.
Remember the adage, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink? Trying to force changes on someone else’s MAP is impossible. The most that’s attained is political correctness with the unacceptable bits being driven into covert mode.
I still side with Lao Tzu, “To lead the people walk behind them.”
October 24th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
[…] Realist vs. idealist – Leadership Turn Miki Saxon on comfort zones and the inclination to hire PLM (”people like me”). “The long-term cost to companies is high. This is especially true when there’s a change in management, since the new person’s PLM rarely matches her predecessor’s. When the choice is between the best applicant and PLM, PLM usually wins out, slowly lowering the quality of talent. PLM homogenizes the staff; reducing diversity of both thinking and thought (methodology and result) and it’s that diversity that supplies strength, creativity and innovation.” […]