In watching Olympic events, I realize I am not in the majority, or at least not in the flow. As I expressed it to my offspring and my larger family, I value the artistry of the Olympic performances and the judging seems to go to pure technique. I began to say, for ’sports’ they need to calculate specific techniques, and my journalist son, Kyle, pointed out that these are games not sports.
A central truth of performance management and performance evaluation is that people do what they are evaluated on. When we determine evaluation criteria intentionally we can expect the performance we are requesting.
It is simply my problem that I would like skaters and skiers to be evaluated based on their creativity, their interpretation, and their embodiment of music or concept. I guess nobody asked me. I noticed that the point system that the judges were using determined what activities the individual skaters and skiers were willing to undertake. A men’s skating performance that was a beautiful, coherent interpretaion of a particular piece of music was deemed of low value because very particular techniques were not present in it.
We can argue at length about the scoring system for the Olympics. The lesson here is that it is not dissimilar to what each of us goes through regularly in our own organizations.
And the lesson comes back loud and clear yet again. If it is really important to the organization, articulate it in the evaluation process. And also be very careful of everything else. Let us not unintentionally devalue other important contributions.
February 21st, 2010
The bamboo in my back yard bends before the force of the snow. The snow will melt someday. The bamboo will stand tall again and dance in the wind.
February 9th, 2010
I noticed with interest the recent flurry about Jon Stewart and some remarks he made on “The Daily Show”. I am intrigued that people are criticizing a comic for his apparent positions and actions, as though they are casting him in the role of a serious figure on the political and political commentary scene.
I recall in one show, a year ago or more, one of Mr. Stewart’s guests was challenging him because he should have, in the guest’s view, covered a particular event and Mr. Stewart replied, laughing and insistent, “This is not a news show. This is a comedy show.”
Is it so strange that some of our humorists have risen to a level of regard usually applied to thought leaders? What is humor that it can have power over us? Of course, not everything that passes for humor does have power. There are forms of purported humor that trade on vulgarity or on divisiveness and attack. I am speaking, though, of the kind of humor that helps us see real situations from other perspectives. It helps us hold two different views simultaneously and we laugh at the juxtaposition.
Perspective taking or reframing is actually the stuff of conflict resolution, of creativity and of leadership. When we can see a situation in a new way we have learned and we have new decision making power. It is an important part of the work I do. It is not so hard to see a kind of leadership in people who make these alternate perspectives public.
When perspective taking is applied to societal events it can become satire. Political and social satire has quite a venerable tradition. The 17th century French dramatist Moliere is considered a genius of the theater and his comedies were very popular in his day. Those plays are still produced in American theaters, enjoyable for their satires of society and human foibles. Overlapping Moliere’s life by a few years was that of clergyman Jonathan Swift, writing in the early 1700s in England. Swifts’ satires are still read throughout the English speaking world. He remains one of the great writers of English prose. Swift’s passionate sense of what was right led him to involvement in public affairs in addition to his satirical writing. In the US a current day satirist recently made the transition to public service, and is now a senator for the beautiful state of Minnesota.
So perhaps it is not such a recent or momentary development to ascribe some stature to our humorists who are satirists. I think, though, we make a mistake when we want to take them literally. Jonathan Swift did not identify with his character Gulliver. We also make a mistake when we expect them to espouse particular positions, as if they represent institutions.
The point of satire is not to be literal but to paint pictures from those other perspectives that help us ask questions and make discoveries. This brand of comic is not a lecturer, but a facilitator. The value is in the inquiry and in the meaning that we make of it.
February 1st, 2010
