Failing Forward

Practice and Persistence Pays Off

"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career.
I've lost almost 300 games
26 times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot ... and missed.
I've failed over and over and over again in my life. That is why I succeed."
~ Michael Jordan

While there can be days when the fine art of seeking new business results in multiple “no’s,” feelings of rejection and a sense of failure, take heart.  These opportunities to excel can help shape our future success.  Much has been written on the subject of achieving success, winning as an achievement in itself.  As far as learning opportunities go, sometimes it is in our failures that the best learning is achieved. 

The pain of rejection can easily take over our mental focus, shape how we view ourselves as business leaders and perhaps reinforce within ourselves that we can’t do something or we may not be as good at this as we thought.

Albert Finney as Uncle Henry Skinner in the film A Good Year, “You'll come to see that a man learns nothing from winning. The act of losing, however, can elicit great wisdom.”

What are we learning from our missed shots?  Despite the continual indicators that money is tight and markets appear to be difficult, success is available.  

I don’t know where I got this from but one of the universal truths that I frequently witness with my clients is, “What we measure we pay attention to.  What we pay attention to will get better.  What gets better will achieve results.”  Has this ever happened to you?  Persistence and focus brings results.

As Michael Jordan’s quote above indicates, it is likely that he used his missed shots and lost games as opportunities to find the lesson contained within the failure that would be the key to his future success. His personal leadership us what carried him through adversity.

How many valuable lessons are you taking from your ‘missed shots’ that will set you up for future success as a business leader?

Currently Watching Master and Commander - The Far Side of the World (Widescreen Edition) By Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, James D'Arcy, Edward Woodall, Chris Larkin see related

Leadership Observations

Master and Commander – The Far Side Of The World
A leadership film case study intended to be helpful to ministry organizational leaders.

 The film Master and Commander and the Far Side of the World is one of many films that explores the interaction and relationships of the crew within the confines of the naval vessel.  Typically these films attempt to reflect the tensions associated with living in such close quarters with the same folks for months or years on end, each day facing uncertain dangers.  Particularly important in these stories is the effect of being continually isolated from the outside world.  In fact it is likely this isolation from the outside world, the unquestioned authority of the captain in exercising power and leadership over the world confined within the ship that makes these types of stories particularly revealing as examples of leadership, group dynamics, teamwork, power and authority.  How the incidents play out depend a lot on the level of discipline as well as the development of the people who make up the crew.  Some earlier examples of film that looked at the leadership dynamics aboard ship include, The Bedford Incident (1965) starring Richard Whitmark and Sidney Poitier,  Crimson Tide (1995) with Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman and the well known The Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) with Clark Gable and Charles Laughton and (1966) with Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard.  Even Mel Gibson in his younger days explored the familiar story in The Bounty with Sir Anthony Hopkins as Capt Bligh (1985). 

These stories make for a well controlled case study in leadership that enables the leadership student to examine key leadership theories without interference from outside or uncontrolled influences.  It is important to note that despite this strength in these case studies, it is critical for the student or the casual observer to recognize that all leadership cases or episodes will not be isolated from the outside world and will included outside or unexpected influences to the outcome of the situation.  Keeping this in mind, Master and Commander – The Far Side Of The World is a good story that reveals several leadership development episodes from which to learn and a fine contribution to the tradition of the naval film illustrating the very difficult nature of life at sea.

Admiralty Orders

To Capt. J. Aubrey

‘Intercept French Privateer ACHERON en route to Pacific INTENT ON CARRYING THE WAR INTO THESE WATERS…Sink, Burn or tale her a Prize’

With this curt description we learn setting for the story and a bit about the journey of Capt Aubrey and his crew of the HMS surprise.  The ship and crew soon find themselves far from home and each day they venture farther and farther a sea in search of their prey - the elusive ACHERON. 

In the early morning quiet, just after six bells, the officer of the watch is alerted to a sound by the lookout.  Taking a look in the direction the lookout indicates the young officer, Midshipman Hollom, peers into the fog attempting to locate the source of the sound.  As Mr. Hollom scans the fog bank he briefly makes out the shape of a ship.  As he looks again for the shape he cannot find it.  Fellow midshipman, Mr. Calamy asks what he sees, and Mr. Hollom tentatively indicates he thought he saw a shape.  When pressed if he was sure, he could not be certain, and Mr. Calamy makes the decision to alert the crew by raising the alarm.  As the order goes out to “Beat to Quarters,” the crew is roused from their sleep and all hands man their stations ready for battle.  As Captain Aubrey meets with the officers of the watch, Mr. Hollom and Mr. Calamy, he asks Hollom what he saw and if Calamy saw it too.  With their responses less then certain Capt. Aubrey commends them for taking action and tells them to return to their posts.  As if on a whim, Capt. Aubrey takes a second look into the fog bank.  He quickly sees what he believes to be cannon fire muzzle flashes and quickly alerts all crew to get down.

 Within a moment the ship is riddle with cannon fire as the attacking ship pulls along side and around the stern peppering the ship with canon fire.  The ship is crippled.  Capt Aubrey directs the crew to put life boats out and have the gun crews pull the crippled ship into the fog bank to hide from the attacking enemy vessel.  Throughout the day crews are rowing the ship to the safety of the fog, the injured are treated by the doctor, and Capt Aubrey and his officers defend the ship from the stern while executing repairs to keep the ship from sinking out from under them.  Throughout the day the crew encourages each other and the rowers to, “Pull for Lucky Jack!”  Their effort is reward when after what seems like hours the crew reaches the fog prior to the enemy ship being able to get into position to engage a finishing attack on the ship.

            Through out this initial exchange the setting and journey of the story is revealed.  The Captain’s relationship with the civilian doctor is that of a close friend.   Dr. Stephen Maturin is a close confidant of Captain Aubrey’s and they frequently share their love of music together.  But Stephen also finds himself at odds with the military lifestyle, the traditions, rules and regulations and as well as his own values, interests and concerns for the men.  We also learn that Captain Jack Aubrey is a creative and resourceful leader not accustomed to losing who tends to look for and bring out the best in each of his men.  He responds to crisis situations with firm calm leadership that provides the example for the officers and crew to follow. 

The film illustrates several relationships as they form and conflicts arise as the tension of the mission grows on the crew:  Mr. Hollom finds himself shunned and isolated by the crew, Mr. Blakeney and the doctor form a unique friendship as they explore their mutual interests of the natural world, tensions develop and grow between Jack and Stephen as the ongoing pursuit of the enemy ship begins to resemble more and more like pride of the captain versus complying with the orders the ship and crew were given.  The journey around Cape Horn of South America is a difficult journey that damages the ship and causes a well liked seaman to lose his live when he falls overboard in the rough frigid waters of the south Atlantic.

This loss is difficult for the men to take in and is a source of tension as Stephen holds this incident up as a loss due to the Captain’s pride and the crew’s eagerness to support the captain in all his efforts. After passing into the Pacific the ship experiences the doldrums where there is not an ounce of wind to power the ship.  The stillness and the heat bear down on the ship and crew giving rise to superstitions about a “Jonah” being on aboard who is the cause of God’s wrath on their journey so far.  The “Jonah” is blamed for all the incidents that have gone wrong and the crew believes that Mr. Hollom is the cause of all their troubles – the Jonah.  Even though Capt Aubrey attempted to provide mentoring and guidance for the young officer, Mr. Hollom finds his life aboard ship too difficult and one quiet evening decides to jump over board while holding firmly to a canon ball taking his own life. 

Another sub-plot is that of Stephen’s desire to explore the Galapagos Islands natural wonders.  As the ship arrives in the area Capt Aubrey indicates that Stephen can take a few days to explore the island documenting what he finds there.  This is opportunity is soon dashed when the ship encounters a couple of stranded whalers who have had their ship taken by the same enemy ship Captain Aubrey has been pursuing.  The whalers provide key information as to when the enemy ship was in the area and the general direction it went.  Captain Aubrey immediately changes plans and orders the ship to prepare to leave the Galapagos Islands in search of the enemy ship.  Stephen is beside himself with disappointment when the captain shouts back to his protests that, “We do not have time for your damned hobbies, sir!”  The pursuit of the enemy ship continues to conflict with Stephen’s desire to explore the islands.  While he is recovering from surgery to remove a bullet after he is accidentally shot by one of the crew he has the opportunity to at last to explore the island with Mr. Blakeney.  While across the island in search of a flightless cormorant Stephen sees the enemy ship at anchor on the opposite side of the island from where Captain Aubrey and crew are anchored.  He heads back to the ship and alerts the captain of the situation.  The final sea battle soon follows with the enemy ship being lured in close enabling the crew of the HMS Surprise to overtake the much larger ship taking her a prize.

Examining Capt Jack Aubrey’s leadership style you could easily see him as a classic example of charismatic leader.  Jack possesses all the good and bad of charismatic leadership and utilizes this to his advantage.  Captain Aubrey’s personality characteristics demonstrate dominance, he is a character larger then life on board the ship and all other officers are “smaller” personalities in comparison to Captain Aubrey.  The junior officers look up to him as he represents success and victory which they hope to achieve themselves one day.  Additionally, Capt. Aubrey influences his officers in there development and training taking personal charge of training the younger officers whilst in the middle of trying to outrun the enemy.  He demonstrates confidence in his abilities and only reflects on his decision making occasionally with his friend Stephen, his abilities never comes into question.  And Captain Aubrey possess strong values on how to lead men in “this little wooden world,” and argues his points with Stephen after Joe Nagle assaults Mr. Hollom and is due to be flogged for his insubordination. Captain Aubrey’s behavior is classic “charismatic leader,” as he is a strong role model for the officers and crew, demonstrates creativity and competence, communicates his expectations, expresses confidence in his crew and easily arouses motivation of his crew through his actions and words.  The effects on the followers is that they would follow “Lucky Jack” anywhere, as Stephen points out to him when he would least like to hear the truth.  While the positive effects of the charismatic leadership style works well with most of the crew. However, Mr. Hollom is left to flounder mostly on his own.  Although Captain Aubrey takes an opportunity to provide him guidance and mentoring, it is too little, too late and Mr. Hollom is left feeling more lost and incapable of achieving the high leadership example that seems to naturally flow from Captain Aubrey as naturally as breathing.  Captain Aubrey appears equally unsure how to communicate what comes so naturally to himself to a junior officer attempting to fin their own leadership footing.  The result is that Mr. Hollom is so lost he takes his own life.

      Just as there was little time and attention demonstrated in the film to the positive development of Mr. Hollom, Mr. Blakeney seems to develop beyond what some may consider him capable of achieving through not only guidance and direction from the captain, but also through his relationship with the doctor.  The majority of the junior officers are really just young boys of 12-14 years of age.  While young, they are treated as officers and expected to perform according to their rank and station on board ship.  There is a sense that these young officers perform according to the expectations other people have of them, especially CAPTAIN Aubrey.  Despite Mr. Blakeney having lost an arm after the first battle, neither his role onboard ship nor his ability to fulfill his role as an officer is ever question.  As the last battle is about to take place Mr. Blakeney is disappointed he will not be part of the boarding party.  However, his spirits soar when the captain directs him to take command of the ship when the captain leads the boarding party to the enemy ship.  Additionally, Blakeney is a key leader in thwarting the enemy from sinking his ship and launches an attack on the enemy that turns the tide of the battle.  This one armed “boy” achieves much more then even he thought capable. Captain Aubrey simply expected him to perform has he has been trained – the fact he was missing an arm never entered the equation.  
In this relationship and the relationship with Mr. Calamy, compared with the relationship with Mr. Hollom, Captain Aubrey demonstrates a shift from the charismatic to the transformational leader. Both these Blakeney and Calamy were given assignments of great responsibility by a leader they respected.  The four “I’s” of transformational leadership came through to both of these officers.  Capt Aubrey’s idealized influence came in the form of his direct example to the officers and crew.  He continually inspired his men to achieve more then what they did the day before.  Captain Aubrey intellectual stimulation comes through during the officer’s dinner with the captain as well as providing opportunities for the younger officers to tryout their new leadership skills, such as when Mr. Calamy “commands” the ship’s decoy as they try to outwit the pursuing enemy ship.  And Captain Aubrey attempts to provide individualized consideration to several of the crew, to Stephen and his desire to explore the Galapagos, to Mr. Calamy in relating a story about Lord Nelson, to Mr. Blakeney in his ongoing encouragement and even to Mr. Hollom after seaman Nagle assaulted him, which ultimately failed to achieve positive results.  Ultimately Mr. Hollom is convinced he is the “Jonah” and that he is the cause for all the crews’ difficulty, leading to his only solution that helps everyone is for him to jump overboard.

So how does this examination of leadership aboard a British naval vessel from the Napoleonic era teach ministry leaders about leadership in organizations?  The key is to examine the relationships to find the leadership lessons that are part of all leadership opportunities no matter the context or setting.  It is easy to imagine the charismatic ministry leader as part of any local ministry. Part of the reflection of the charismatic leader comes from the followers who see in the leader what they would like to see in themselves but do not believe they have this quality.  Unfortunately when this happens the charismatic leader attracts people to them and not necessarily to the cause, problem or issue the leader needs the people to be influenced to be part of.  Subsequently the Charismatic leader likely will end up with more work then they are capable of achieving on their own, the great likelihood of disappointing their constituents as the results achieved are not up to expectations and even isolating or pushing people away from serving in ministry as the example ends up being that only those who are properly trained can lead a ministry initiative.  What the ministry leader can do to combat these negative effects of the charismatic leadership is transferring this energy into qualities reflecting transformational leadership in order to raise the level of morality of the follower.  ?One day while serving as an assistant youth ministry leader a key volunteer ask, “so, is it this church’s policy to recruit a volunteer, use them up and toss them aside, then go out and get another one to fill the void?”  His point was that as a ministry leader I was not fulfilling the expectations fo the volunteers nor was the youth ministry staff putting enough energy into developing the volunteers as real ministry leaders.  We were expecting them to show up each week and complete tasks, without inviting them into meaningful relationships with the staff or the teens.  It was a remarkable conversation which only ended in a positive our come because both the volunteer and myself were determined to make the positive changes necessary in order to put the focus on volunteer development versus just task completion. 

      The lesson of Mr. Hollom’s situation can be taken into any setting that people are on the outside.  Leader-Member Relationship Theory focuses on the how the leader develops relationships with subordinates and the natural in-group and out-groups that form.  What the leader needs to do is to form as many positive, strong relationships with followers as possible.  What is not shown in the film is Captain Aubrey’s developing relationship with Mr. Hollom. 

Mr. Hollom is never shown at the Captain’s table for dinner, nor is he shown in a mentoring setting with the captain.  The scenes showing Mr. Hollom’s life onboard ship continually shows him isolated from the other officers and without direct influence from Captain Aubrey.  As ministry leader, it is important to take this lesson as a call to action to develop positive relationships with all followers, whether they are staff members, volunteers or first time visitors to the ministry.

Additionally, the ongoing authentic relationship demonstrated between the captain and the ships doctor represents a key tool for the ministry leader to continue on the path toward leadership self-mastery.  As Captain Aubrey and Stephen engaged in heated debate, speak openly about their hopes, fears and beliefs and this relationship enables the Captain to reflect upon and receive direct feedback regarding their leadership strengths and weaknesses.  As a ministry leader, especially one who may lean toward the charismatic leadership style, having a personal relationship with a trusted friend or advisor outside of the ministry setting will help the leader remain focused on what they are doing right, enabled them to see for themselves what they are not doing well and work out what might be positive steps to take in order to bring about more positive outcomes of future leadership episodes.  The ministry leader is not immune from the difficult path the leadership journey travels.  What is difficult for the ministry leader is finding the appropriate relationship outside the ministry setting in order to keep that objective reflection a guiding presence in their ministry life.

Captain Aubrey eventually put his relationship with Stephen ahead of what he was seeking.  Throughout the movie Captain Jack is chasing after the enemy ship with single minded dedication.  He exceeded his orders, pushed the crew to its limits and continually put the needs of others “subject to the requirements of the service” pushing aside as trivial what could have been alternatives to success.  But it is not until Captain Aubrey let go of achieving victory over the French enemy ship, and choosing instead to place a greater value on his friendship with Stephen that real change occurred for him.  Once Captain Aubrey decided to go ashore on the Galapagso in order to conduct Stephen’s surgery and convalescence is he able to achieve what he is looking for.  Stephen returns to the ship after exploring the island with the news the enemy is anchored on the other side Captain Aubrey’s goal is closer to him then if he had continued chasing after the enemy on the open sea. 

“It is more important who we are together then what we do together.” 

This statement was made to me from a ministry leader who is trying to teach this concept of ministry leadership to members of his congregation.  As the congregational leader and teacher, he has taken this message as his guiding principal for all ministry interactions.  This relates to the film in that when the captain decided to put his relationships ahead of his goals he eventually achieved both.  It was the letting go of the pride that drove him that allowed him to focus on his friend.  Just as the ministry leader lets go of the “To Do” list, let go of the plans, allows others to contribute, grow and share their creativity, then real positive learning and growth of the ministry will occur.  Just as Captain Aubrey had to let go over what he was chasing, to see his orders differently as the situation changed over time, so too must the ministry leader let go and allow God to lead through to the better future.

Currently Reading Certain Trumpets: The Nature of Leadership By Garry Wills see related

Revitalization

Revitalizing organizations is actually a more common need then most folks may care to realize.  Entropy, status quo and dare i say traditions may contribute to diminished capacity and a failure to focus on the results that make the mission and vision of the organization a guiding beacon to drive toward success in the future.  How often have we seen the work teams, departments or organizations that just seem to be missing something.  And if we were to travel down the hall or across town to a competitor's organization we might find drive, vitality and a collective sense of purpose and commitment.  Why is this and what can we do if our team, department or organization finds itself settled into the status quo, resplendent in its comfort zone, secure in knowing that all will be well (enough) is things don't change too much or at least perhaps only get a little bit worse. 

Synopsis:

The two films this week approach the revitalization issue from different settings and time periods. Similar themes are reflected in both; overcoming prejudices, low expectations, limited resources to achieve desired results. Both films explore the journey the leader and the organization travels in its transformational process.

Glory depicts the story of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment from the Union Army during the U.S. Civil War. Col Robert G. Shaw is commissioned to command the first regiment comprised only of black soldiers, except the officers. Col Shaw takes his mantle of leadership seriously in developing his troops to be real soldiers so they may prove themselves ‘men’ in battle along with the white soldiers who have been fighting and dying for the cause. These new soldiers process through the usual growing pains and hard lessons typical of military indoctrination as their paradigms shift from self to the good of the unit. Col Shaw consistently approaches his command, through his actions and words, to raise up the troops to a higher level of morality and purpose – for the greater good, thereby bringing out the best in them.

Lean On Me tells the transformational story of Eastside High School and its life cycle of high performance to low performance and to their effort of reaching for the former capacity of the school to be an institution that made a difference in the lives of the students so they may succeed in life. Principal Joe Clark takes command and rules with firm discipline and instilling self-pride into each student so that they may eventually achieve the “American Dream” they see advertised on TV that appears so easy to get. The reality is that hard work and dedication are needed to achieve these dreams and this starts with the arrival of Principal Joe Clark.

Analysis:

Contingency Theory as presented by Northouse (p-111) helps us to look at Col Shaw’s and Principal Clark’s Leader-Member Relations, Task Structure and Position Power to frame their leadership situation.

From a broad look at the level of interest and initial enthusiasm of his troops I would interpret leader-member relations for the regiment would be considered ‘good.’ In forming a military regiment there is considerable task structure: Col Shaw’s task was to prepare the regiment for battle, the officers and NCO’s were to provide sufficient training toward this end, and thr troops were to become skilled in the disciplines of their indoctrination as soldiers. So Task Structure could be considered to be ‘high.’ Col Shaw’s Position power as the Commander would be seen as ‘strong.’ This outcomes according to fig 6.1 (p-111) indicates a leader with a low LPC, or a highly task motivated leadership style would be necessary for success in the position as leader.

Looking at the Eastside high School environment that Joe Clark found himself immersed in the leader-member relations were poor – for teachers, staff and students. Joe Clark was overturning the apple cart and the status quo was disrupted, even though that is precisely what was needed. Task structure in this situation was extremely low-structured. Each day and many times during each day there were new challenges, problems to solve and improvements to be made. However, Clarks positional power as principal was used to the fullest extend of the definition for Principal Clark so his positional power would be considered to be strong. Looking at the outcome of this path in table 6.1(p 111) a high LPC or a relational style leader would have greater likelihood of success in this leadership situation. But from a turnaround focus, the higher-task focus was necessary at the beginning and we rarely see relationship development with other leaders within the context of the film.

Heifetz reflects on the thoughts of social theorist Herbert Spencer (p 16) that ‘the times produce the man” indicating that leadership emerges in context. As a situational theorist it is suggested that ‘what an individual actually does when acting as a leader is in large part dependent on the characteristics of the situation in which they function (p 17). This appears to align with the Contingency theory indicating different leadership styles are necessary for different leadership situations.

In the films these leaders were present in their situation for their time. Col Shaw was placed in the situation, developed his unit to meet the tasks assigned to him and remained in that leadership position to the point he was no longer needed. As depicted in the film he died in his effort to lead in a way to bring honor to the men. For Principal Joe Clark, he was present for the times that he was needed to bring about the change necessary, again to raise up the level of morality, to transform the organization, the team and the students in a way they may not have been able to see or achieve on their own.

Both the leaders in these films were successful up to the point of the potential routinzation of their situation. As Col Shaw stood on the beach as the mission was described, he was at a place where no decision, other then to volunteer his unit to lead the attack on the fort, would have fulfilled the honor for his men. Principal Clark was present and guided the turn around, but the rest of the story is that he moved on after a few years. The routinization of the process did not enable him to retain the leadership role he had carved out for himself when the times called for tough change. An example of this similar effect of the shift that occurs after the “miracle” work is done can be seen in King David as described by Wills (p 110) when David attempted to impose administrative accountability through the implementation of a census versus a charismatic trust in God, he became an oppressive bureaucrat. His role as a leader for the times that he was needed had reached its zenith and the decline began as evidenced by uprising of his son Absalom.

How do we answer the question, "what leadership qualities, actions and processes must be in play to create a sustainable change process?" From observing the revitalization within these two stories a clear mission and focused task are necessary. Discipline and adherence to fundamentals for success are necessary in both of these contexts. Seeking out all that is wrong, inappropriate or detracts from the ability of the group to achieve success must be routed out and banished from the organization. And lastly, a focus on a higher morality or invitation to the great possibilities that can be achieved through overcoming obstacles, to get to that better future, brings the people to a place where they then take ownership of their future together.

Question For Reflection:

At some point in leadership situations as described above there comes a point when a shift from task focus leadership style must give way to a relationship focused leadership style. Does this mean the leader must learn to adapt or that it is time for a new leader to step into the role?

Northouse, Peter G. Leadership - Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publishing, Inc., 2004.  

Heifetz, Ronald A. Leadership Without Easy Answers, Harvard College, Belknap Press, 1994

Wills, Garry Certain Trumpets, Simon and Shuster, New York, NY, 1994

Currently Watching 12 Angry Men By Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Ed Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber, Billy Nelson, Rudy Bond, John Savoca, James Kelly see related

Leading without authority

As an opportunity to study and evaluate group dynamics and explore leadership from a different perspective I recommend viewing the classic film "12 Angry Men."  Many leadership lessons can be learned from viewing films that explore the leadership episodes people encounter on a daily basis.  Catching a glimpse of juror deliberations gives precisely this type of opportunity for us to learn something new about leadership.

The lesson or the question that we can ask with this film focuses on the issue of leading when you do not have authority to lead.  Although this may sound counter intuitive, this type of leadership occurs every day, in our workplaces, churches and families.  Since part of the role of leadership is to help people face their problems, as opposed to just focusing on achieving a vision.  This type of "unauthorized" leadership changes whole societies for the greater good.   Think Ghandi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King for large impact examples.  For the everyday examples, think about the co-worker who consistently shines the light on management inconsistencies, the protester, the union organizer, the parent pushing the local school board for better opportunities for the children of the community.  

Synopsis:

As the film opens the jury of a murder trial is given its instructions to deliberate the evidence presented in trial and to decide on a verdict.  Twelve strangers locked in a room known to each other only by their juror number, 1 through 12, must decide the fate of a young man accused of killing his father in a fit of rage.  The initial vote of the jury is 11 Guilty and 1 vote Not Guilty.  The majority of the men in the room feel this is an open and shut case that should be decided in a few minutes.  But the character played by Henry Fonda, juror number 8, “Just wants to talk about it first,” before condemning a man to be executed for the crime.  [Must be a dominant Feeling type on his MBTI ].  This desire to talk it out creates the conflict that drives the other members of the jury to more closely examine their own motives, thoughts, prejudices’ and beliefs.  For the remainder of the film, through discussion, review of the evidence, timing of the sequence of events submitted as fact and actually playing out certain events for themselves, the jury is able to come to a unanimous decision – Not Guilty.  

Analysis:

Juror Number 8 was not surewhat to think of th eevidence presented, and despite considerable peer pressure, held to his conviction to talk through the evidence before jumping to a verdict.  As an 11 to 1 underdog in his desire to talk through the process and the evidence, he was without a support base. Heifetz (p 186) describes that a person who is leading without authority may have to construct, strengthen or sometimes broaden their base of informal leadership.  As in the case of Juror number 8, his simple approach to seeking clarity in his convictions about the issue initially created the opportunity for one person to side with him simply because Juror 8 was strong enough to stand up to the rest of the jury.  So a base began to develop.  As a leader developing in an environment where he had not authority over the others, he began to illuminate and shape the reasoning process for the others thereby shining the light on underlying pressures, prejudices, and biases.  As Heifetz (p 207) would describe the situation, Juror 8, without any authority, began to modulate the provocation of the others in seeking responsive change.  “A leader without authority can spark debate, but cannot orchestrate it.”  As this process began, also along with Heifetz description (p 208), Juror 8 became a lightning rod as the center of the discussion, debate and provocation. 

Questions for Reflection:

How does a leader without authority to lead know in advance when they are about to go too far?

How should “authorized” leaders respond to “unauthorized” leaders when the provocation begins, heats up and takes on steam?

Heifetz, Ronald A. Leadership Without Easy Answers,  Harvard College, Belknap Press, 1994

Currently Reading Lifting the White Veil: An Exploration of White American Culture in a Multiracial Context By Jeff Hitchcock see related

Starbucks versus Ethiopia

Starbucks vs. Ethiopia

The country that gave the world the coffee bean and the company that invented the $4 latte are fighting over a trademark, says Fortune's Stephan Faris.

Nobody is arguing that the farmers have it easy. In a UN ranking of human development, Ethiopia placed 170th out of 177 countries. A recent visit to Fero (coffee growing region in Ethiopia) found most coffee farmers working without shoes. Their clothes were ripped. Most live in mud huts with thatched roofs and subsist on the fruits and vegetables they grow. "We are angry," says Teshome Debigo, a 28-year-old farmer. "But to whom can we cry?"

This year the cooperative that manages the Fero farmers' production and sales produced 300,000 pounds of coffee. If the coffee sells as it did last year, each of the cooperative's 2,432 farmers will net about $120 - the total yearly cash earnings for themselves and, on average, four other family members. Another $20 per farmer is captured by the cooperatives and unions, which goes toward infrastructure and administration. Starbucks awards $15,000 to the producers of its premium lines. In Fero that amounts to about $6.20 per farmer.