I read Joe Nocera’s recent Talking Business column and the second to last paragraph jumped out at me. The article was about the real reason H.P.’s board ousted Mark Hurd. Nocera argues that Hurd might not have been the type of leader that H.P. needs long term. In that paragraph he quotes a former H.P. employee who makes the argument that what H.P. needs is a leader with Carly’s (former CEO Carly Fiorina) strategic sense, Mark’s operational skills, and Lew’s (former CEO Lewis Platt) emotional intelligence.

I’m sure you can guess that from Dialect’s perspective these are very different qualities.  It would be a truly rare person who excelled in all of these areas. In fact, the three qualities described are three of the filters that we talk about in Uncommon Sense. Many of us grew up being told that we could accomplish anything we put our minds to.  Yet, as we learn more from neuroscience how our brains work, it becomes clear that we can’t excel at everything. And I believe Nocera’s column articulates three very different strengths that require very different kinds of wiring. Of course, I’d love to hear examples of leaders who possess all three of the qualities Nocera outlines.  Any takers?

I was reading another post by Michael Hyatt this morning, and it struck a cord with what we do at Dialect and why I wanted to start the company.  Michael was asked a simple question in an interview: “Which is most important – mission, core values, or vision?”

Michael answered that they are all equally important and interconnected.  They are distinguishable but inseparable.  You can read the post here.

Then the comments came rolling in.  One comment on Michael’s post says that he has heard that values are defined first.  Another person was more animated about the need for values to come first.

In my experience, leaders start from many places.  We’ve done work with companies were the leader sees purpose as being the glue for everything else.  In other situations, we’ve had leaders emphasize shared values and the strategy.  In other situations we’ve seen leaders who start with strategy and return later to what it will look like when they get there (vision) and what beliefs and behaviors will be necessary to accomplish it (values).

What do you start with at your company?

You can read it here.

One of the things that I find most interesting about strength based
thinking is that it seems as though we (as people and as companies)
seem to take our strengths for granted.  We expect others to be able
to do what we find so easy.  And many times, we wish we could do what
we see others do so well.  I see the same things happening with
companies.  The article talks about different ways to look at
innovation in light of the strengths that your company possesses.

I’d like to hear how you define the strengths of your organization.

In many ways, her post relates to two important concepts we try to emphasize in our work:  sync and cognitive filters.  She points to the need for a memorable message, the need for stories, action tools, partners, and “point of action” nudges.  Together, these five elements relate to creating a direction, building a culture that supports the change, giving process to the effort and connecting the ideas in concrete ways to stakeholders.

Typically, we find that most of us can’t do all these things well because they are very different strengths (i.e. filters).  By making sure that each of Rosabeth’s elements work well together (i.e. they’re in sync), you have a better chance of enabling change.

When you think about the change efforts you’ve been a part of, did leaders recognize our cognitive diversity and use that knowledge to their advantage?

His thinking is simple, straightforward, and powerful.  It resonates with my experience and from a personal perspective, it can be hard to keep the why in mind when dealing with the challenges of business and life.

We recently talked to a large company that has merged two divisions.  The company leaders are asking the question, How are we better together?  I believe their how is Simon’s why.

When is the last time you’ve really looked at your why?

Danny Ludeman, CEO of Wells Fargo Advisors, recently spoke at Webster University as part of its Success to Significance Speaker Series.  He spent part of his time talking about lessons learned during the A.G. Edwards: Wachovia Securities merger including several surprises that even a CEO as experienced as he was not prepared for.

We’ll share just a few them for your consideration.  First, he talked about never underestimating the human impact of an acquisition or merger.  He noted that the economics of the transaction were fairly simple.  It was the effect on people that one should never underestimate.

Secondly, he felt that his team focused too much on the similariites of cultures.  For example, both were customer-centric cultures.  But the ways in which they expressed customer service were quite different.  They underestimated the impact of those differences on their efforts to integrate the organizations.

One final observation of Ludeman’s that he spoke of as a both a business and a life lesson:  the importance of differentiating between wants and needs.  The concrete example he used from the A.G. Edwards:Wachovia Securities merger was the legacy A.G. Edwards employees’  ”need” to be part of an organization with a reputation for integrity and customer service.  As a result, they expressed their “want” to retain the A.G. Edwards name.  Their “want”  was a barrier to seeing other ways to meet their legitimate need.

As you think about mergers and acquisitions you have experienced, which of these lessons resonate with you?