So often, we think we have just the right idea to solve a problem. It seems so simple, if we could just get others to see our brilliance, we could solve all our problems!

My niece is staying with us for her annual vacation in the mountains, something she’s been doing since she was 8 years old, and her visits just keep getting more interesting. In the beginning, like most children, she had an answer for everything. Now, as she is applying for medical school, she is much more educated, and I am happy to report, wiser as well. She has realized something that many people either never realize, or at least do not like to admit.  We do not have single solutions to most problems. Even simple problems have complex issues just below the surface. The
following is a real question from Brown University Alpert Medical School application:

Imagine that you are approached by a multibillionaire philanthropist who wants to donate a substantial fund of money to a single project with the goal of “fixing the US healthcare system”. He or she asks for your expert opinion on what project this money should go towards; what would you advise and why?

This led us to an interesting conversation about the real challenges facing healthcare – seemingly unsolvable by our government throughout history, unsolved by the insurance industry, the hospitals, the universities, the non-profits, the churches and the World Health Organization, but a reasonable question to present to students who have yet to enter medical school. At least we will learn how she thinks. Frankly, she thinks the school admissions folks could learn to clearly state a question, because as we picked this one apart, it could mean a wide variety of things, but that is another story.

If the intent of the question is to ask for one project that could have the most impact, as opposed to the one project that could “fix” the whole system, we could have a fighting chance. We discussed a few paths, none of which we decided on. 1. Buy congress. There’s a reason the food and chemical companies do this - this may be the least expensive path to getting laws changed that dramatically affect the safety and health of food, alcohol and tobacco, school lunches, insurance, etc. 2. Hire ad agencies to make the truth about health appear as sexy as the lies we get from industry that has a profit motive in conflict with health and wellness. 3. We always seem to have money for wars and fighting the marijuana trade (who would be happy to pay taxes). Surely, we could find a way to house, feed and treat mentally ill homeless people, instead of using the Emergency Department. I bet by now, you have some ideas of your own – universal healthcare? Repeal the Affordable Care Act? Go back to the system we hated before the system we hate now? Rely on charity and churches? Promote personal responsibility? Sue the fast-food joints? Get kids to be more active?  If the question was to identify a single project, for which you have passion and why, that
would make more sense. 

To ask for a single project with the goal of “fixing the system” strikes me as absurd.


How do you approach problems in your life or workplace? Do we look for a solution? Do we look inward to ourselves and think we can solve it alone? Do we look to the one person responsible and ask them to find a solution?  Every problem is complex. We are inextricably linked to one another in so many ways. The ripple effects of our decisions cause unintended consequences for our employees, our customers, suppliers, neighbors, etc.  A lack of easy solutions frustrates us, so we short cut to a simple solution that solves our immediate problem and we decide we will worry about other things later. This happens even with simple problems. For example, I went for an iced coffee and waited almost ten minutes because now, iced coffee gets in line behind all the specialty drinks. This can take quite a while on a busy day. I asked why they no longer just pour iced coffee the way they do hot coffee and learned they changed it a year ago to ease the burden on the front line people. I wonder if any customers were consulted before making this change.  I am practicing being patient, and learning to embrace long lines when I have the time. Otherwise, on a busy day, choose hot coffee or leave. I wish I had a voice.  
 
Does this sound familiar? Right now, we just need to “fix”this problem, whatever it is. My advice is to slow down. Invite the stakeholders, host the difficult and time-consuming conversation, review your true goals, and make a decision
when you find the wisdom to solve a problem that is most win/win, and that is most congruent with the ultimate mission at hand. None of us is smart enough to do this by ourselves. Further, most problems require more than just a single solution.

Michael Kline is a professional facilitator, success coach and trainer. He may be reached through his website, www.klineseminars.com, or  e-mail, mike@klineseminars.com.

By Michael Kline
as published in Conway Daily Sun

Compassion need not be at the expense of reaching goals, making money, or being professional. Neither however, should reaching goals, making money or being professional be at the expense of compassion. I have heard from many business managers who say that the goals come first, that compassion is a luxury we cannot always afford, - even in the non-profit world, the mantra is often no money, no mission – which is true, so long as the money doesn’t replace the mission.

I would like to ask: why in the world, would anyone take a job, where they had to sacrifice compassion in the name of
reaching goals or making money?! Unfortunately, I know the answer to my own question – I have been there. I had the job where my boss demanded specific results. I remember a hotel manager who once spoke of customer complaint letters this way – Whenever we got a complain letter, he would check the records to see if we were sold out on the night of the guest’s stay.  If we were, he ignored the complaint. If we had not sold out that night, the staff knew there would be hell to pay. The message could not be any clearer – the mission was to sell every room, every night. Occupancy first, average room revenue was second, guest satisfaction was third. This vision worked well for
producing a short-term bonus for the manager. Occupancy rates were high, repeat visits were low. It is easy to see how we get into jobs where we are expected to focus on misplaced priorities. When we need the paycheck, we sell our souls slowly, without even realizing we have done so. Somewhere along the way, we lost our vision to make a difference in people’s lives, to make the world, even if just in our little corner of it, just a tiny bit better. By the time we grow into positions of authority, we have often forgotten or lost somewhere in our cynicism, our natural wisdom, our principles and values. We have our own bonuses and incentives to earn to cover our mortgages and retirement  plans.

What about being professional? What kind of profession would identify showing compassion as not “being professional”? Frankly most; mostly because people misunderstand what we mean by being compassionate. It is common to think that practices of compassion are too soft and squishy, too warm and fuzzy, too touchy-feely for the work place. People who promote the softer side of work relationships are seen as less productive, less concerned about real results, and less success-oriented. After all, we are here to produce real results, in a real world, and the touchy-feely stuff is nice, but who has time for that when we have so many urgent projects to complete?!  Compassion in the workplace, with all stakeholders – employees, employers, co-workers, customers, and vendors, increases productivity and lowers costs. This is proven, measurable, and universal. In The Speed of Trust, by Stephen M.R. Covey (son of the 7 Habits Covey), Covey explains the trust tax – the high cost of conducting business in a low-trust environment, vs the trust dividend you earn in a high-trust relationship. Perhaps it involves weeks of negotiating a contract with lawyers when a handshake would have done nicely. Perhaps it is simply a worker double-checking your work because they do not trust that you are competent. This is very expensive and a huge waste of
time. If we agree on this simple concept of a trust tax and a trust dividend, then what does it take to increase trust? 
Building trust requires time, attention, listening, caring, being honest, transparent, extending trust, and making promises that you keep. Dammit, we’re right back into the touchy-feely stuff, aren’t we?! 
 
I frequently hear employees say that it will not work in their workplace because of the owner, or the management. On the contrary, in my experience, I have discovered that even the most power-hungry, domineering, greedy and seemingly un-loving people in the world, really only want the same thing the rest of the world wants. We all have different ways that our desires manifest, but at some level, we are all striving for love and connectedness. We are all made of the same stuff, so the feeling of being separated drives us to do crazy things in an effort to win back some sense of being loved and connected. It is my belief, that even the worst tyrant in the world is driven by some deep-rooted belief that if they gain enough power, wealth, control (or whatever), they will finally have their true desire, or make people regret their not having it. If only they knew how easy the shortcut to love and connectedness really is. I love my work because I get to bring the touchy-feely stuff into the workplace in a way that produces better long-term
real-world business results with a higher level of compassion, love and trust. 

By Michael Kline
as published in Conway Daily Sun
 
The E-Myth may have a flaw. In our last article, we discussed the critical need for systems. According to Michael Gerber, author of the famous E-Myth - Why Small Businesses Fail and What to Do About it, we should organize our business around functions, not people. Systems run our business and we hire people to run the systems. I would argue a bit with my long-time hero. Time has proven that the battle between systems and people is not quite so simple.
 
The book is brilliant no doubt, and if you are starting out and you are the technician (the person who does the technical work of your business), then it is probably very helpful to you. At some point in your growth, you will outgrow this basic concept and awaken to a new set of challenges. The faster you get to these sometimes-frightening new challenges the better, so long as you are prepared to face them.

When you have a simple business, with simple processes, it is relatively simple to hire people, train them a bit and try to manage them into compliance. I hope you heard the phrase "We manage things, we lead people". What is the difference? No matter how simple your system is, the people you invite to run them are complex. People are always going to be complex. If your industry, your business or your systems are also complex, I would venture to guess that you are facing rapid changes and complex problems as well. Add this to the complexity and unpredictable nature of people and we have all the makings of a stressed out, frustrating unpredictable work environment, where trust and communications rapidly deteriorate. Low trust slows everything down and increases costs. High trust speeds up processes and reduces costs.  Clear and open communications are required to accomplish any mission, let alone on time and within budget. So how do we mesh the need for systems, with the need to embrace the experience and wisdom of people? How do we get the buy-in and commitment of people? How do we invite others to share in our leadership so we can handle complex challenges and rapid change and all thrive as a team? How do I get my ego and old habits out of the way?
 
I just finished another week sharing a room with Jack Canfield, America's #1 Success Coach and about sixty other highly successful transformational leaders and students. As we study the latest thinking on personal and business success, the classic success principles still have the most power. A consistent theme is that the need to complicate that which is simple and the tendency to simplify that which is complex arises out of personal self-limiting beliefs, old paradigms and fear. Perhaps we are afraid that if we need to rely on our staff for real input, we will look weak, or that
the staff won't be smart enough, or talented enough to be of any real help and besides, it is faster to figure out the problems myself.

So most managers, make decisions, print out the memos then call a meeting to discuss the issue. At the meeting, they ask for input and questions, then defend their own decisions and snuff out any input anyway, as they hand out the documents they prepared before they even asked for input.  Is it any wonder staff is not engaged? There is a better way, but it is not for everyone. This week, I joined a Mastermind group of wildly successful professionals from across the country, from a variety of industries. I was very pleasantly surprised to learn their process of facilitating meetings, was super-efficient, laser-focused, and highly productive. The process, followed by many of the most successful people and groups in the world, mimics the techniques we teach in Circle Process. Even with a wide variety of backgrounds and personality types, the process works well for everyone involved because of our dedication to the goal and our commitment to support one another. The same process is widely used in a variety of forms to resolve issues between perpetrators and victims of crimes, with fighting families, community organizations, and work
groups.

Circle creates a safe space for anyone to speak the truth, for anyone to take responsibility, and to lead on any given idea. The formal leader no longer has to have the best answer, but rather benefits from the collective intelligence and life experience of the entire team, who actually starts to act like a team, whose success is not singularly dependent on having a superstar team-leader. Warning: Your super-start team leader’s ego may benefit from their current position. They may resist new paradigms of sharing leadership and developing team members around them. Also, those who do not trust other team members or management will need to build some trust, which the system provides over time.

My recent studies and practice of the process continues to confirm that variations on Circle might be the most  effective tool for creating collaborative environments of high trust, solid communication and shared responsibility. Some groups simply do not have enough motivation to go through the hard work of using a totally new system for
creating a culture of trust and communication. Circle also requires the total support and buy-in from top management, who must be confident enough and willing to be vulnerable with their staff.
 
Many of the best success stories for Circle come from the non -profit, government, legal and healthcare sectors.
However, many of the wealthiest and most successful business people in the world belong to Mastermind groups, which follow the same principles.
 
Your organization needs more than systems to run the technical work of the business. Successful organizations need
a people system, a communication system and a system for creating and improving more systems. Circle process is a system for engaging the wisdom of all the people to collaboratively share the leadership load along with the heavy burden of continuous problem solving.

On July 11th, I will be co-facilitating a free half-day training program to teach an introduction to Circle Process. While we promoted this event to non-profit first, you do not need to be a non-profit. It will be at the White Mountain Hotel from 8am-noon, and pre-registration and a $10 fee to cover the cost of a breakfast break is required. Visit www.klineseminars.com to register or learn more.