Saturday, May 26, 2007

FROM "LEADERSHIP AND SELF-DECEPTION: GETTING OUT OF THE BOX; COLLUSION"

"Self Betrayal"
1. An act contrary to what I feel I should do for another is called an act of "self-betrayal."
2. When I betray myself, I begin to see the world in a way that justifies my self-betrayal.
3. When I see a self-justifying world, my view of reality becomes distorted.
4. So--when I betray myself, I enter the box.
5. So over time, certain boxes become characteristic of me, and I carry them with me.
6. By being in the box, I provoke others to be in the box.
7. In the box, we invite mutual mistreatment and obtain mutual justification. We collude in giving each other reason to stay in the box.
...

"When having a problem, I don't think I have one. I think other people are responsible." He paused for a moment, then said, "So here's the question: So what?"

...

As I find myself involved with more and more businesses and business opportunities--as the number of businesses I am contracted to help has grown--I repeatedly see a single fundamental difference between the companies that are capable of help from me (or anyone else for that matter) and those that are not.

The Arbinger Institute's explanation of the function of self-deception in leadership
is entertaining and an easy read...I read the entire 175 page book in but a few hours. But brevity is an art...and this book sticks to its charge and delivers.

Fundamentally we know when people are full of shit and when they are not. One o the reasons academics get such a bad rap in the business world is that there is an exceptional number of them that are dripping with the behaviors of self-betrayal: the way they speak, the way they self-justify, the way they rationalize. It all "sounds" good but astute business minds quickly boil down these perambulations to something like "Is this person full of shit or not?"

In many ways the book, Leadership and Self-Deception, might be the first ever business book about what fundamentally differentiates one leader from another, one business from another, one business deal from another. To what extent are the individuals involved willing to participate in self-deception.

I am thinking in particular about a recent business deal I was working on with Commercial Property Consultants (CPC). The basic premise of our Bay Area arm of CPC is that we can accelerate cash flow for commercial property owners. We do this through techniques that accelerates depreciation. We accelerate depreciation by producing a report for business owners and their CPAs called "engineering based cost segregation." Our CPC group has done 6000 of these studies...the benefits for property owners has been unbelievable. From Golf Courses, to Apartment Complexes, to Hotels, to Restaurants, to Supermarkets, to Office Buildings and Office Parks, CPC has benfitted owners from all walks.

Anyways, I was meeting with an influencer of a very large property management company. He'd expressed interest in a free estimate of his benefit (which we offer) but as we boiled it down and made clear we would need at least one depreciation schedule to provide the free estimate, the influencer began to back away from the opportunity. Dozens of reasons came flying across the table..." I don't get it." "Wait a second, the ROI is over the course off a year? I thought I'd get it all right away." "Pay for the service? Can't you just take it when we get the ROI?" "Look inside our buildings? That can't be arranged..." And so forth.

But what was really emerging was his inability to produce the depreciation schedules required. The truth was that he was afraid to ask his boss, the property owner, for the depreciation schedule. Fear was causing him to create problems where there were none. He was full of shit. So I went and visited the property owner myself. I never mentioned the influencer. I have no reason to discredit this person--if anything when the opportunity presents itself I would like to find a way to compensate and commend the individual influencer.

I explained what we do in as direct a fashion as I could as quickly as I could. I was very clear on the massive benefit to the property owner. But I was not full of shit and when I was done, I told him he could have his "free money" if he wanted it and if he didn't no problem. And I meant it. I was congruent. He opened up his cell phone and he called his CPA to get me a Depreciation Schedule for one of his buildings. Done.

I don't know if he will move forward with our services or not. We'll present a value to him and if thinks it worth his time he will follow through. If not, he won't. But that is not the point of this story. The point here is that the influencer is not the same type of business person as the property owner. I would even go so far as to say they are not the same type of people all together. The influencer lives inside the box. The property owner lives outside the box. Success in life between being an office clerk and office owner--it appears to me--might be just this very slight difference in a way of being.

This is way of moving through business engagements I am constantly trying to maintain--and rarely succeeding in doing. The constant vigilance required to look at every interaction as a function of how I can be of service to the human being I am looking at and speaking with is a tall order. My interaction with the property owner was a great learning opportunity for me to understand how and why success is directly correlated to living in a world focused on things as they truly are.