leadership

Topic of the day.. A  massive lesson i learned is that I can't expect people to match the effort I put in. I always thought if I tried harder and was honest and transparent that people would give the same back to me, but that's not true. 

I had to learn that not everyone is willing or capable of putting the same effort for me. But that's not the same as tolerating it, either. I can accept it without having to tolerate it.

Have you noticed that when workplace performance dips, people's first reaction is to rush to explain it? What they rarely do is slow down long enough to notice how the work started to feel different first. 

And that doesn't show up in dashboards - but it does show up everywhere else.

The teams that recover fastest are the ones that say, 'Something feels off. Let's talk about that.' And that's irrespective of incentives, or even tighter processes. 

In my experience, performance doesn't fall off when people stop caring, it falls off when people stop being sure about what caring looks like anymore.

This probably stands out to me because I spend a lot of time inside teams when performance is under pressure. 

If you have any perspective on this, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Incorruptible Organizations AMA with Eric Ries. Wednesday 2/4 at 3:00 PM CT

Lean Startup author who now focuses on legal structures to protect mission-driven organizations from corruption. incorruptible.co

Free book giveaway! Register here.

Incorruptible Organizations AMA with Eric Ries. Wednesday 2/4 at 3:00 PM CT

Lean Startup author who now focuses on legal structures to protect mission-driven organizations from corruption. incorruptible.co

Free book giveaway! Register here.

The concept of this app sounds promising. Do you think the internet can be a place for deep and meaningful conversations in this day and age?

Are spiritual teachers more narcissistic on average? Our best guess at infant phenomenology is that we come out of the womb experiencing a pre-differentiated oneness. As babies, we assume the world revolves around us because for all we can tell, the world is us. We have no way to empathize bc we can’t take another perspective. This theory underpins a lot of psychological claims, like “we internalized our parents’ fighting, assuming it was about us when it really wasn’t.” 

I claim this isn’t an elevated spiritual state, because we haven’t developed individuality yet. We need to have something before we can transcend it. Ego collapse and ego-transcendence both involve a different sense of self from the adult norm, so they’re easy to confuse without a developmental distinction. Both provide a sense of certainty, and rely on non-linguistic knowing, making it harder to recognize the distinctions.

To the extent this is true, it makes me wonder: Are spiritual teachers more narcissistic on average?? (some evidence points that way, but no rigorous studies exist). Can they differentiate between the state of pre-differentiated and post-differentiated union? And if they can’t, how often are experiences labeled “union,” or “nonduality” actually literal infantile regressions? If so, wouldn’t these teachers exhibit the same self-centered orientation of an infant?

Plus, selection effects: narcissistic individuals are drawn to roles with authority, attention, and reduced accountability structures. Communities where charisma is more relevant than independent reviews of competence (versus accounting or Nascar), and states of attainment are categorically unverifiable by the students (versus massage or writing fiction).

Distinguishing infant oneness from transcendence

This doesn’t mean all spiritual teachers or leaders are “narcissistic” even in a colloquial sense, just higher risk. And it’s an inherent epistemological risk in finding someone who’s better than you at something you haven't accessed, using frameworks you haven't developed, verified by experiences you can't reproduce (yet).

So best to encourage critical thinking, and introspect on some of the checks I have for myself (and others) about myself and anyone I look to for guidance: Is my spiritual practice increasing my need for special treatment, entitlement, surrounding me with people that never challenge my views? Am I always turning criticism around—saying it's “your karma,” “your projection,” “your lesson”, “your drama triangle stuff”?” Am I telling others what’s true about them without acknowledging my projection (ironically), justifying boundary violations since it’s all illusory, calling my emotional reactivity "authenticity," calling others’ reactivity attachment?

Or do I laugh at myself, and the inevitable foibles I engage to maintain the sense of self I’m laughing at? Can I laugh at any so-called “spiritual attainment”? Do I truly not need special treatment—do I wipe the toilets and empty the trash like everyone else? Am I able to hold many different perspectives at once, including “unity” and my uniqueness? Do I maintain appropriate boundaries while experiencing interconnection? Is my ethical behavior consistent across contexts?

What is Relateful - it's not JUST being vulnerable> right? . What is Relateful? 

This is something i think about almost all day long. Ok that's extreme over stating, but it's a big part of my life.  It's not what is it, but more like, HOW DO I EXPLAIN IT?

What is it though.  So for me, it's been a life changing practice.  For me, after trying what felt like every healing modality in the universe (obviously impossible task), circling 2018 on circle anywhere was the tool that truly created the - changes.  

What's most alive for me at the moment, is the memories of the people who tried circling/relateful and did not like it.  WHAT no, some people don't like it? That can't be (wish i could change font color for my sarcasm). 

These imprinted memories of witnessing sessions where a person seemed to have a need and that need wasn't met.  For instance, someone (person A) reaches out to another participant (person B) with some love and care - the receiver (B) - goes into their system truth at the moment - and communicates - they cannot receive and or reciprocate this love and care.  The person A offering their care becomes upset obviously trigger.  The "giver" person A, is not able to see that they weren't actually giving love/care, but asking for love care.  Maybe this is a big assumption on my part - but if we give someone a compliment or reach out for connection and we are not received the way we wanted to be received... then it's not giving - it's almost demanding, or cloaked need. 

This person A was (probably still is) a therapist in the real world.  We connected outside of the platform and listened to their side and how upsetting this experience was for them. That person then made claims that this practice isn't safe.  Person A did not continue.  Person B  is someone i trust and wasn't at the time, but is now a Relateful facilitator.  Stating this, i want to side with participant B doing this practice, being themselves, expressing in a way, their inability to allow love in, who was not available for a connection, but was available for being with that inability to connect. That is how i witnessed it.  It felt to me like a beautiful experience, but it's hard for person A to be with how it feels to reach out and not be received. 

I'm guessing (assuming) you have all witnessed this in a session in some way.  Then there are rumors from these types that Relateful is - not just an unsafe practice, but they seem to claim it's harmful or damaging. 

The example given was the most obvious in my witnessing. The therapist unaware of what this practice and the seasoned practitioner doing the practice - with their most truth in the moment, can't receive their love and care.  There was not an attack of any kind, the receiver was in my opinion doing a beautiful practice with attunement and didn't speak until prodded to respond and when doing, did their best to be kind in their moment of not wanting to love bomb out of a social norm. 

Not saying we can't get better at attuning. Not saying it was a perfect example.  

What i'm wondering is if there is a way to explain this practice in advance- where they are prepared???   Like how powerful and life changing this could have been for the therapist and my actress friend and many others.

This sweet well mannered soft actress friend of mine practiced for a few months and felt similar in times... she said "i was being my most vulnerable and it's harmful for me to continue this practice".  This friend of mine - 5 years ago - i felt responsible, that i some how oversold the practice as a place to be your most authentic self.  She internalized it - "a safe place to be vulnerable".    But i never said that, even back then, i would describe this practice as a "safe place to practice being with unsafe".   

Now very recently with a human who will remain nameless... heard similar things:
paraphrasing:

"i was being my most vulnerable self..." 

This invisible rule, if someone is being vulnerable, then the whole group has to be gentle and say "awe" or something like that.  

Or that if one is being vulnerable, the group needs to navigate as to not cause any harm to that person.  It's so sublte and submersive comes to mind, but they participant is UNAWARE that there vulnerability is cloaked in need and manipulation.  

How to communicate what this practice is???!!!

Deliberately Development Orgs are bullshit? I expect others here read and were influenced by An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization by Kegan and Lahey?

I remember first being introduced to it in a circling retreat probably 8 years ago or so. One of the example orgs they use is Bridgewater Associates with Ray Dalio at the head.

I loved their believability-weighted decision making algorithm (nod to Uptrust's setup here) that would score people's expertise in different fields. I loved their radical transparency and recording of meetings. I loved their "baseball card" feature for all employees showing where they're strong and weak.

But then I read The Fund: Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates and The Unraveling of a Wall Street Legend. The author peels back the surface and basically shows Dalio ran essentially a narcissistic cult in his hedge fund. The algorithm was hard coded so that Dalio was ranked highest in every category. The recordings were highly edited to make him look good and his targets bad.

I haven't spent time looking at the other examples in the DDO book yet but I question maybe a for-profit huge corporation is going to be fighting really uphill to be a virtuous company in today's systems.

Deliberately Development Orgs are bullshit? I expect others here read and were influenced by An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization by Kegan and Lahey?

I remember first being introduced to it in a circling retreat probably 8 years ago or so. One of the example orgs they use is Bridgewater Associates with Ray Dalio at the head.

I loved their believability-weighted decision making algorithm (nod to Uptrust's setup here) that would score people's expertise in different fields. I loved their radical transparency and recording of meetings. I loved their "baseball card" feature for all employees showing where they're strong and weak.

But then I read The Fund: Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates and The Unraveling of a Wall Street Legend. The author peels back the surface and basically shows Dalio ran essentially a narcissistic cult in his hedge fund. The algorithm was hard coded so that Dalio was ranked highest in every category. The recordings were highly edited to make him look good and his targets bad.

I haven't spent time looking at the other examples in the DDO book yet but I question maybe a for-profit huge corporation is going to be fighting really uphill to be a virtuous company in today's systems.

Deliberately Development Orgs are bullshit? I expect others here read and were influenced by An Everyone Culture: Becoming a Deliberately Developmental Organization by Kegan and Lahey?

I remember first being introduced to it in a circling retreat probably 8 years ago or so. One of the example orgs they use is Bridgewater Associates with Ray Dalio at the head.

I loved their believability-weighted decision making algorithm (nod to Uptrust's setup here) that would score people's expertise in different fields. I loved their radical transparency and recording of meetings. I loved their "baseball card" feature for all employees showing where they're strong and weak.

But then I read The Fund: Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Associates and The Unraveling of a Wall Street Legend. The author peels back the surface and basically shows Dalio ran essentially a narcissistic cult in his hedge fund. The algorithm was hard coded so that Dalio was ranked highest in every category. The recordings were highly edited to make him look good and his targets bad.

I haven't spent time looking at the other examples in the DDO book yet but I question maybe a for-profit huge corporation is going to be fighting really uphill to be a virtuous company in today's systems.