When towers lean a little

In a fascinating way, the people we meet can naturally be divided into circles: I may have a couple of hundreds of followers on Twitter, a part of whom engage in my tweets, some come so close that they actually go beyond Twitter and start reading here, and a few go so far as to actively react on what I have written.
Thus I was inspired to write this post by Bojosi Gamontle, who had come to the innermost of these circles, and after reading the post about the tower that did not lean at Osborg asked whether there is room in our daily lives though to say, "maybe the tower can lean a little today"?
Such a question is a bit too complex to respond to via Twitter - even after we have been given twice as many characters per tweet - but on the other hand it's too good a question not to be answered. And therefore it ended up as a post here instead.
Funny enough, it's a question that I have also debated (in a slightly different disguise, though) with a close colleague: should we be afraid to fail as a result of trying to do things in a new way? My good colleague thinks we should be afraid. If the things we create are released to the customers and malfunction, people could get physically hurt. Period. I am however of the opinion that there is a time to fail and a time to be careful: the things that are released to the customers must of course be okay - but on the way towards the finished, tested and functioning result we should allow ourselves to be as innovative as possible and fail as quickly as possible, otherwise we will never become smarter and better.
The same applies to the master builder of Osborg. I have no doubt that he had been in situations along his way, where the things he tried to build had crumbled to pieces in spectacular ways - that is what it takes to eventually be able to stand tall as a master builder. And in the same way, we must also allow ourselves to be imperfect, embrace our failures, admit to our vulnerability and be able to assess where it is necessary that we deliver our best. We, too, need to try things that fail in order to learn what works and what doesn't - and in the end we may in certain ways be like the builder who stood impassive when he was accused of having made mistakes, while we know very well that we have many other things to polish when we return to our studies. So yes, there are plenty of times when the tower may lean a little. We may even say that there are times when the tower by all means should lean - because otherwise, we have not challenged ourselves and have not escaped far enough from our comfort zone to build even higher towers of the future without fear of having them crash to the ground.
(Translated from Når tårne hælder en smule)

On the topic of help and delegation

In Rebecca Elvy's latest i3 Leadership Newsletter, she challenges us "to stop trying to do it all on your own and ask for help..."

The challenge of asking for help is an interesting one.

Let's forget that asking for help to a certain degree is a display of vulnerability - that you are not the superperson that you might desire to project the image of, because such a superperson would be able to do everything herself and still be able to fly around the world at the speed of light, all in a day's work. (The topic of vulnerability and why showing your weak spots might be a good idea has been discussed here earlier). And the vulnerability can easily be explained - there's a reason that you are the leader of a team; you simply have so much to do that you should not be able to do it yourself - or might not have all the relevant skills - hence the team.

Let's also forget that some people avoid delegation because knowledge is power - if a leader does not want to share necessary knowledge, she is not displaying leadership, not to be considered a leader and should never have been appointed in the first place.

And then I am happy that I did not even think about the point that Rebecca also mentions: the thought "that delegating or asking for help will ... not meet your exacting standards..." Because I take pride in empowering and trusting my team, it makes me happy that I did not even think that whoever I might delegate a task to might not be up to do it in a satisfactory way.

But Rebecca is still so absolutely right. From time to time I get into these situations where delegating seems a waste of time - because I would be able to do what I ask for in a fragment of the time, as I have tried it before, and know that simply the task of delegating it to a more inexperienced person would take time, because I would at least need to have a mentoring role in the process.
At these times, it is beneficial to at least consider: is this something that we for sure never need to do again. Because if there is a fragment of possibility that this could be a recurring task, then it must be remembered that next time the task occurs, the additional resources used on mentoring and building up experience will start paying back. And even if it is a one-off task, there is still a possibility to develop the delegate in the process, and it should be considered, if the time is not well spent on it.

Finally, the delegation is also a process of knowledge sharing - and if the knowledge is shared, the risk that a task cannot be handled the next time I am for some reason not around for it diminishes.

But in the heat of the moment, we tend to act rather than think. And if there's one thing your piece on asking for help has done, it has made me make a mental note: the next time, I am about to start on something that I might as well delegate, stop doing and start delegating. It's not necessarily an easy thing to do, but the above considerations show that it's an important one.

(Translated from Noget om hjælp og uddelegering)

An (honest) appearance

We live in a culture that does not favour display of vulnerability and uncertainty - vulnerability and uncertainty are signs of weakness, and weakness is not a personal feature that has overwhelmingly positive impact on one's career prospects. Rather, it can be taken as an invitation to others that this is a person who is easily bullied.
But does it have to be that way? For is it not so that the one who tries to build up an unbreakable armour by radiating safety and invulnerability will make other people think that there must be something hidden somewhere? A weakness, which the person is overly eager not to put to display?
I think the best thing to do is simply to let other people know that I can also be vulnerable and insecure. If such cases are put on display, it becomes much more trustworthy when I appear to be robust in other situations - because I am able to show weakness.
Who knows - maybe one would even be able to hide the uncertainties that one is not interested in displaying in public?
(Translated from Et (ægte) ansigt udadtil, originally published October 12th, 2012)

On the topic of being authentic and natural

I have in recent times grown into somewhat of a fan of psychology professor Adam Grant, and therefore, I am paradoxically pleased , when I manage to find something written by him, with which I disagree - as it shows me that I still carefully consider the impressions I take in, rather than just blindly accepting them and passing them on because they are rubber-stamped by the trust (very much in line with yesterday's post), I have in the person from whom I have gotten the impression.
Thus, I read over the weekend in the Sunday Review of the New York Times a post by Mr. Grant under the heading "Unless You're Oprah, 'Be Yourself' Is Terrible Advice". In this, he concludes that "Next time people say, “just be yourself,” stop them in their tracks. No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. They just want you to live up to what comes out of your mouth."
Initially, it made somewhat of an impression with me - partly because a few weeks ago I stood in front of a couple of dozen people and made a speech with the main conclusion: "Be yourself. Act naturally." - and is Adam Grant not opposed to this?
The more I read Grant's post, I think that the question lies in what you put into "being yourself". For if it means to be yourself, without filters, right down to the level where you release all your innermost thoughts - well, then I completely agree with Grant that it is not the best advice; who may well disagree with that? Then we would go all the way to the level where I need to tell people if I prefer cats to dogs, and at this level you can go terribly wrong, even though it has no relevance at all to the relationship, one has the people to whom it is disclosed. But on the other hand, I think that the second part of Grant's conclusion with advantage can be reversed to support my point. "No one wants to hear everything that’s in your head. And they do not want anything to come out of your mouth, if you are not able to live up to it."
So yes: Be yourself and act naturally - to the extent applicable within the framework set by the relationships you have to the people in front of whom you should be yourself and act naturally . It is relevant for the boss to know that you are not a dog person, if you apply for a job in a kennel. Not if you apply for a job at a factory where the boss happens to have dogs as a hobby.
Interesting enough, later on, Brené Brown - another person, I am somewhat of a fan of - wrote a piece defending autenticity and vulnerability, and Adam Grant replied to it; when the last word is said between them, I am pretty sure they have ended up in an agreement on how one can apply authenticity, sincerity and vulnerability to become one's best self. I will follow the debate with great interest.
(Translated from Noget om autencitet og naturlighed)