Monthly Archives: October 2014

Yesterday evening I attended a public program at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) at which AOTUS David S. Ferriero introduced a screening of Codebreaker.  The film is an affecting, sobering docudrama about Alan Turing.  Executive producer Patrick Scammon spoke and took questions from the audience.

I chatted briefly with David and enjoyed our congenial exchange, as always.  I spent most of my time as I waited for the program to start reading about management issues.  But I walked out of the National Archives thinking about how random events can affect intellectual achievement and lives in tragic ways, as in the case of Turing.

How to spark creativity, encourage it, when there are so many forces that work against it?  Including what people do to each other.

Risk aversion, control, gatekeepers, metrics, the need to demonstrate return on investment.   Labels, categorization, classification, cataloging, authorities control.

Boldness, freedom–at all ranks–to try out new things and succeed or to make mistakes.  To adjust course and try something new.

How can you balance these elements–real and aspirational–that are present in some combination in many libraries, archives, and museums?  By accepting and learning to live with what requires control and what does not.  Including change itself.  Not easy to do.

There has to be a structure–a vision, plans, goals, objectives.  But bringing about change is an uneven, at times unpredictable, process which requires handling a number of complex elements.  I do not believe change, whether traditional or “disruptive,” can be fully “managed.”  And trying to do that may not be desirable in all cases.  Especially when one of the cultural change goals is to spur creativity and inventiveness.

According to Isaac Asimov, “creation is embarrassing. For every new good idea you have, there are a hundred, ten thousand foolish ones, which you naturally do not care to display.”  In an essay he wrote while Dwight D. Eisenhower was President, the famed scientist, humanist, and science fiction novelist argued that given the way new ideas flow, creativity requires isolation.

Yet he also pointed to how people can stimulate each others’ creativity.  And how small group discussions can lead to thinking outside the box.  Asimov’s essay remained unpublished from the time he wrote it for Allied Research Associates in Boston in 1959 until a scientist published it at MIT Technology Review last week.

Some elements reflected a specific time and way of doing things in the 1950s.  But he also identified others that seem timeless.

The Wikipedia entry for Asimov describes his relationship with the creator of Star Trek:

“Asimov and Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry developed a unique relationship during Star Trek’s initial launch in the late 1960s. Asimov wrote a critical essay on Star Trek’s scientific accuracy for TV Guide magazine. Roddenberry retorted respectfully with a personal letter explaining the limitations of accuracy when writing a weekly series. Asimov corrected himself with a follow-up essay to TV Guide claiming despite its inaccuracies, that Star Trek was a fresh and intellectually challenging science fiction television show. The two remained friends to the point where Asimov even served as an advisor on a number of Star Trek projects.”

An assumption adjusted.  A continuous learning situation that played out in public.

Just as you can’t control or really manage change, only encourage its acceptance, you can’t control creativity.  As Asimov observed, “The creative person is, in any case, continually working at it. His mind is shuffling his information at all times, even when he is not conscious of it.”  Isolation encourages this but sharing knowledge in small groups also can stimulate creativity.

“No two people exactly duplicate each other’s mental stores of items. . . It seems to me then that the purpose of cerebration sessions is not to think up new ideas but to educate the participants in facts and fact-combinations, in theories and vagrant thoughts.”

In Asimov’s view, there may be people in a group whose presence silences candid discussion.  He described the chilling effect of a person unsympathetic to free-flowing conversation that may veer into the foolish.  Or someone who dominates because he (or she) is expert in a subject.  (I would add that someone who perceives him or herself as an expert, or wants to be seen as one, but isn’t, yet uses up inordinate time, also can chill conversation.)

Asimov believed that

“There must be someone in charge who plays a role equivalent to that of a psychoanalyst. A psychoanalyst, as I understand it, by asking the right questions (and except for that interfering as little as possible), gets the patient himself to discuss his past life in such a way as to elicit new understanding of it in his own eyes.”

As I read the 1959 essay, I thought about Social Media.  Twitter.  Blogs.  Internal Collaboration Networks.  And old media.  Journal articles.  Email subscription professional Listservs.  And self-created forums, such as random hallway conversations.

Asimov’s essay resonates across platforms despite its age simply because people are people.  For successful engagement, you need to create a safe environment where they can relax.

I first wrote at a blog about the change environment at the National Archives and Records Administration in April 2010.   Where did I share my thoughts?  Under the first essay by David Ferriero, at a new blog he launched in April 2010.  I didn’t know him yet, we wouldn’t meet until 2011.

But even before I met and came to like and trust David, I figured, hey, something different.  The Big Dude (as I referred to him at my anonymous blog) is out here talking.   Let’s see what happens.

I joined the conversation.  Many other people did as well.  The title of the first blog post by the Archivist was “No Small Change.”  My first comment at AOTUS blog was as long as a blog post and I admitted as much!  (I wouldn’t find a better platform for long form musing, my own blog at NixoNARA, until December 2010.)

What did I talk about?  Being entrepreneurial in a government setting.  I pointed to the challenges of reconciling creative anarchy with risk aversion within federal bureaucracies.  I quoted what a former head of a federal agency had discussed with my colleagues and I in an oral history interview.

“In a pure venture capital environment, you know that up to half of your ideas are going to fail. But you know that the other half are going to more than make up for the half that failed, on a profit basis. Government doesn’t get that same credit for the half that fails versus the more than half that succeeds.

….In business, if you have a fragmented organization, you may make a mistake here, and you may experiment there, but you try to offset it even more by successes elsewhere. . . .The President’s public is not so forgiving.””

Alex Howard, @digiphile, points to similar elements in a thoughtful essay he published yesterday.  Alex looks at an effort by the IBM Center for the Business of Government to assess government innovation efforts.   He points to the challenges of discussing failure as a barrier to innovation, a barrier which receives glancing mention in the IBM study.

“Innovation, by its nature, often comes through experimentation, which inevitably results in failures. Inventors, researchers, software developers, engineers, and scientists all know this dynamic well. Thomas Edison famously tried thousands of approaches to a light bulb before he found one that worked. The Apollo Program endured failed launches and tragic deaths.

One of the key success factors behind the success of the “New Urban Mechanics” in Boston lay in the ability of its leaders to insulate experiments against risk. In today’s polarized political environment and 24-hour news cycle, this isn’t a minor issue: any mistakes, much less programmatic failures, can and will be reported upon in the media and cited as evidence of incompetence by the opponents of elected officials.”

I’ve read other IBM Center reports over the years.  They offer good analysis in some areas but also can have limitations.  In some cases, I’ve observed significant blind spots on issues with which I’m very familiar.  This was due to information asymmetry.  Certain emerging issues and conditions were known to insiders but masked or shielded from the external researchers because of internally required message discipline.   But the IBM Center reports also have offered a useful outside perspective on governmental issues.

I also recently read a published essay and some slideshares about change management.  The various authors drew on William Bridges’ approach to managing change.  It is one I have grappled with for some time now, since I first heard a presentation about it in 2006.

NARA tried using the Bridges model back in the old days, before Ferriero became Archivist.   Now there is a new NARA taking shape.  The agency seeks to incorporate change throughout the agency.  To Ferriero’s credit, NARA has left the Change Officer model in its past.   There may have been a time when its use was warranted or at least deserving of a good try.   But its templates can’t be applied to major cultural transformation. So I like the fact that the NARA Ferriero leads looks at change in terms of empowerment.

The Bridges model has some good points–it stresses the need to have a plan, to communicate, and to listen.  But some of its framing is grating, perhaps due to insularity. This is where tapping into backchannels, such as Twitter, heightens sensitivity to what plays well and what does not.

For example, I strongly dislike the negativity of a “change management” official referring to “resistance.”  This is not helpful to the agency head or executives or managers or supervisors the change officer is supporting.  To guide employees towards the type of major change NARA now is working on, officials need to be free to apply their own interpretation of what is happening and why.

A much better and more neutral way to look at change is to think in terms of buy in.  And to look at where listeners are in terms of a spectrum where they may shift forward, back, forward again, rather than distinct phases of the type Bridges applied.  This means embracing change as chaotic.

I haven’t seen any presentations of the Bridges change management model that acknowledge that the people seeking to implement change feel frustration and anger at times, too, not just those being asked to adapt to new ways.   Or that they might “resist” listening to feedback necessary to change course or even modify the objectives.

See what I just did?  I flipped the Bridges scenario to demonstrate that barriers are best viewed as individual and opaque at times, not categorized and visible.

Change in Washington, in Fedland, faces challenges because of the elements the IBM Center analyzes and the additional barriers Alex Howard describes in his Tech Republic article.    Bringing it about requires managing expectations but also letting go of the idea that you can control change.  Better to accept the fact that its course is highly individual and cannot be reduced to formulas.  To set a vision and to encourage “a willingness to be involved in the folly of creativeness.”

Asimov writes of creativity that “It seems necessary to me, then, that all people at a session be willing to sound foolish and listen to others sound foolish.”  What he’s talking about is a safe zone.

“First and foremost, there must be ease, relaxation, and a general sense of permissiveness. The world in general disapproves of creativity, and to be creative in public is particularly bad. Even to speculate in public is rather worrisome. The individuals must, therefore, have the feeling that the others won’t object.”

Building such a safe zone isn’t easy in Washington, a complicated place where not everyone is playing by the same rules or motivated to apply them fairly.   Trying to control change while seeking to encourage creativity only adds tension to a workplace.

NARA is wise now to tell supervisors “Trust yourself.  You can do this!”  Give people space, treat them with the same respect you want shown yourself, help them relax.  Learn when to manage and when to step back and to un-manage, instead.

Human interactions.  Complicated.  Some things we do well.  Some things…less well.  Yes, I avoided framing that in a negative way!  And it applies to everyone.  Absolutely.  Nobody’s perfect.

Some of the mistakes we make affect more people than others.  That’s why managing and leading people effectively is so important.  And why it depends on openness and continuous learning.  People matter!

Talking about interpersonal relationships in the workplace–or in virtual and physical professional space–isn’t easy.   To its great credit, officials of all ranks at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) have been doing just that.  Talking.  And listening.   As part of many change efforts, its officials have been looking at how to improve the managerial and supervisory culture in the agency.

In my last two posts, I discussed some of the basic and the leadership competencies the National Archives looks for at different levels.  And highlighted people whose skills I admire.   I like the values and the skills that NARA requires.  But working through issues in an organization where people do some things well and some things less well–including some of the managers and supervisors themselves–can seem complicated and even overwhelming at times.

I am where I am and who I am because of circumstances and because of choices.  My own, those of others.  Same for everyone to some degree or another.  I was a twin, of course.  But my late sister Eva and I (pictured at NARA in 2000) were both alike and very different.

The forces that shaped us were not the same.  Our strengths and weaknesses were not the same, either.  And I’m not the same every day.  I’m constantly recalibrating depending on what I’m learning and experiencing.

On Thursday, I took the day off and went out to NARA’s College Park location, Archives 2.  Every time I go to Archives 1 or Archives 2, I expand my horizons.  I add new experiences–mostly good ones–to my memories of the agency in which I once worked as a team leader and in which my sister was a supervisor and team leader.

Eva would like the new Supervisors Handbook that NARA developed recently.  And not just because she would have added her voice to that of the many supervisors and managers and executives who contributed to the insights and knowledge it shares.  Some members of the current executive and management team once worked with and for her, such as Neil Carmichael, Jay Bosanko, and Joe Scanlon, pictured with her in 1994.

Eva valued people, mentored them, and talked to them about process and people issues.  Showed who she was herself, in her strengths and weaknesses.  Sought to help those officially in her supervisory care and others outside it, as well.  Which meant she listened and tried to learn from as well as guide others.

My sister would have loved the recognition that there’s room for some fun in the workplace.  And I love this photo of Eva, the supervisory archivist, with Neil Carmichael and another member of her team at A2 in 1994.  I wish she still were here so I could say to her, “What a great expression on your face.  What did you just hear?  Did one of the guys just zing you?  Or make a spot-on funny comment about the workplace?  What’s going on?”  Definitely not a posed, press release ready photo.  Which is why I like it for the random moment!

Management involves dealing with really random stuff.  As NARA’s best officials understand in the current cultural change effort, people are individual and circumstances in each work unit can be very different.   The vision of “One NARA” means employees should strive to work towards common goals and not just think in terms of the unit in which they work.  But to their credit, National Archives’ officials recognize that there are local cultures within the larger NARA culture.

Geographic locations, proximity to Washington, work requirements, available career paths, resources (often not nearly enough!), all are in the mix.  But there’s a common ethos among the best employees.   They cherish the agency’s mission and they work hard “each and every day” to contribute to it.

On August 21, 2014, a ceremony at NARA’s Washington National Records Center (WNRC), which I call Archives 1 Plus, marked the naming of the research room for one such employee.  Bernard Gardner, who joined the National Archives in 1967.  NARA featured the event on Facebook and on its Tumblr:

“On August 21, 2014, the National Archives recognized Bernard Gardner’s extraordinary value to the National Archives and its customers by dedicating the Washington National Records Center research room in his honor. It is now known as the Bernard E. Gardner Research Room. This recognition is a testament to his lifetime of accomplishments, which have largely been behind the scenes, and to the values he embodies each and every day.

Bernie started with General Service Administration’s National Archives and Records Service, the predecessor to the National Archives and Records Administration, in September 1967 and, by then, had already worked more than a decade in positions at the Department of Navy and the Civil Service Commission. This humble gentleman embodied customer service and a commitment to provide access to Federal records long before it was mentioned in any Strategic Plan.

Throughout his years with the Washington National Records Center (WNRC), Bernard Gardner became a subject matter expert in some of the most complex collections stored at the WNRC—the Department of Defense overseas collection, Veterans Affairs XC claim files, and Selective Service records.”

Exactly.  Strategic Plans are part of the management process in Fedland these days.  But it is the people who make access happen.  That always has been the case, always will be, as Plans are updated and issued, time and again.  It’s all about the people.  People such as Bernie Gardner and his fellow members of the NARA family who work with temporary records and permanent records while agencies and departments still hold title to them and with accessioned records in NARA’s holdings.

People who ensure that NARA acquires records so the public can learn about their government.  People who process those records “largely behind the scenes” to make them available for research, on-site or virtually.

Pictured below with Bernie Gardner are AOTUS David Ferriero,  Deputy Archivist Deb Wall, NARA Chief Operating Officer Jay Bosanko, and other officials who gathered to honor him on August 21, 2014.

There is no sure fire template to apply to achieve success as a leader, a manager, an executive.   No guarantees.  So much can happen.  Some things you can control.  Some you can’t!

At every level, working with people involves some trial and error.  So I very much like NARA’s recognition in discussing supervision that everyone makes mistakes sometimes.  That supervisors should admit them to the extent possible, learn from them, and keep trying.

I’ve made mistakes.  There are a number of issues I’ve written about at my blog since December 2010 that I see a bit differently now, although others I see largely the same way.  I’m constantly learning and recalibrating as needed.  I’ve apologized at my blog.  To David Ferriero, whom I’ve come to admire and trust greatly,  for doubts I expressed on the Archives & Archivists Listserv in August 2010.  To Steve Flowers, learning and development official in NARA’s Human Capital Office.  Sometimes the only way to keep learning is to say publicly, “I was wrong” or “I didn’t realize that” or “I’ve gained new insights.”

When I went out to Archives 2 on Thursday, I enjoyed reconnecting with old friends, such as Joe Scanlon, now Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Officer, and his deputy, Jay Olin.  But I also was pleased to meet in person Steve Flowers, to whom I apologized here at my blog earlier this month.  I had misjudged Steve, been too hasty to classify him based on a single quote someone else posted.  Live and learn, Maarja.  And as the photo in the cafeteria shows, I very much enjoyed our chat!

I would like to have seen Eva at the table with us for some of the conversations I had on Thursday, too.  We often talked about the same topics back in the day.  As I do, she cared about people issues.  Each of the archives technicians in the photo of Eva the supervisor with the team in 1994–Jay, Joe, Neil, and Chuck Hughes–later went on to supervise others.  And then some!  In Jay’s case, supervisor, manager, executive!

Learning and trying require knowing one’s own strengths and weakness.  And assessing correctly those of others.   Yes, the same thing the Big Dude, David Ferriero, pointed to in 1982 in “Burnout at the Reference Desk” when he was a supervisory librarian at MIT.

Much of the ongoing NARA managerial improvement effort has the same vibe as David’s 1982 article:  low key, humble.  Well thought out and common sense advice.  Realistic and humanistic.  The team must look out for each other.  And it’s alright to have those feelings.  Talk to each other.  Learn how others can help you and you them.  Very relatable.   Changing a culture takes a long time.  It is a sustained and ongoing effort.  But worth doing so others will benefit in the future.

One reason I love the Kids Sleepovers that the National Archives and its Foundation partner started this year is the comfortable vibe used to introduce children to the value of history and records.   And the Archivist of the United States making pancakes for kids, as this morning!

Just one sign that this definitely isn’t your Old NARA!  Internally and externally, the agency is working to become more open, to engage, to teach, to learn.  That calls for adaptability and understanding whom you are trying to reach.

I like the fact that instead of approaching the development of a Supervisors Handbook for new and veteran supervisors with hyper-intensity and hyperbole, NARA took a practical, knowledge gathering and sharing approach using a low key tone which helps the reader to relax.  That’s why I know Eva would like it!

The Handbook offers  a mix of traditional process advice but also many insights of the type that people talk about honestly when they’re sitting around having a beer or a meal.  It is thoughtful, not didactic.  Just like the best managers I know.

Are there other areas of the larger NARA change effort where Eva might disagree on tactics or tone, if not substance?  Sure.  Why not!  There are many areas where I’m realistically optimistic about NARA’s current efforts and a few where I see “growth opportunities.”  Eva very well might, as well.  And that’s okay.   To be effective, the change initiatives depend on contributions from people who are self aware, situationally sensitive, culturally aware, and open to learning and listening.

I like the advice NARA now offers supervisors and managers about taking care of others.  And taking care of yourself.  Both of which are key elements in taking care of NARA and its mission.

Most of all, I like the underlying message.

Trust yourself.  You can do this!

As I talked about research to Project Runway’s Tim Gunn and AOTUS David S. Ferriero in the Archivist’s Reception Room on September 30, I exclaimed, “Serendipity!”  When I was a grad student, my stack pass enabled me to browse shelves in the back areas of the Library of Congress building.  I still remember my joy when I took my notes from having looked in the card catalog back into the stacks to look at a book, only to find others I didn’t know about as I wandered down the aisle.

One of the delights for me of getting “that dream job” as an archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) was the joy of exploration.  Some very random on my own.  Walking through the stacks, stopping to examine a box in a series for which the labels caught my eye.   Some knowledge-dependent, as I teamed up with colleagues.   Meeting up with a friend and colleague who had mentioned in conversation records in which he or she was expert so I could explore a collection I hadn’t known about.

How do you make the dream job work out once you get it?  The National Archives has posted Career Competencies on its website which point to some answers.  They also provide insights into the qualities NARA seeks in job applicants and develops in new hires and current employees.

David Ferriero (pictured at a staff luncheon) pointed to some of the competencies in a January 2012 keynote speech to library and information science educators.  He looked at change and adapting to new ways of sharing knowledge and doing business.  I liked the qualities David described, especially this:

“The ability to embrace continual learning. Seeking opportunities to
expand knowledge and skills through formal and informal training and feedback. Identifying and levering own strengths and developmental
needs and striving to improve own skills. Demonstrating and supporting
continual learning and sharing knowledge and expertise with others.”

I like very much that Ferriero mentioned both formal and informal training. The tone at the top is so important.  I greatly admire David’s capacity.

Before I look more closely at NARA’s career competencies, I’ll say this. Embrace life’s chaos.  You may have a life plan.  You may have career goals. If you’re lucky enough to get that library or archives or records job (and let’s face it, luck is a big part of that), you’ll work in a structured environment, for good reasons.

But things are going to go wrong.  For you. For others. Because of what you do wrong. What they do wrong.   There are times when you’re going to feel discouraged. Burned out.  Yes, David Ferriero’s 1982 article on “Burnout at the Reference Desk” really resonated for me and not just in matters related to reference and providing information.  Sometimes, I just need the reminder that it’s “alright to have those feelings.”

At times, strong forces are going to buffet you.  As they did yesterday when I went out for the walk during which I sought to capture in a photo the light and greenery behind me.  But ended up getting a picture of my hair blowing wildly in the wind.  The untamed bureaucrat with untamed hair.  Messy!

Formal training has been important to me, especially early in my NARA career. But some of the most important lessons I’ve learned have come informally.  Some from models, positive and negative.  I’ve seen some people with weak skills handle things badly.  But I’ve also seen people with awesome strength show admirable capacity.  This is true in the virtual world as well as “in real life.”

Sometimes, I feel as if I’m just absorbing information constantly. About people, processes, situations.  Some of the “aha” moments where something suddenly fits together and makes sense occur while I’m out walking.  Or when I move from one task to another and in the process suddenly see connections (negative or positive) between two unrelated things.  Those unscripted, unguided learning moments are highly individual.

Whether they are painful or uplifting, they are random and happen without direction or control.  Formal learning can give you the foundation for understanding them, making the most of them.  But so can intuitive responses. And stored memory images of what you’ve seen others do and say.  I’m lucky I have many good models to draw on!

A key player in NARA’s learning and development initiatives is Steve Flowers of the Human Capital Office.  I owe him an apology.  Glad to do it here.  I expressed dismay at my blog at the start of this year about a quote from Steve about Machiavelli selected for inclusion on a NARA website.  But I’ve come to see that it didn’t begin to convey what Steve is all about.  And what he is contributing, very well by all accounts, to NARA’s efforts to improve the workplace.

I’m glad to admit I shouldn’t have jumped to conclusions so quickly about someone I hadn’t met, based on a single quote someone else chose to share. Lesson learned!  Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you.  And I’m happy to say I now think he’s a good asset on NARA’s team.

That team, on the mission and mission support sides, both, is made up of many contributors in different units and various ranks and pay grades.  NARA explains core competencies, such as problem solving, communications, customer service, and interpersonal skills, here.  It also lists general and technical competencies.   And competencies for supervisors, managers, and executives.

NARA’s explanation of leadership competencies resonates with me very strongly.  Not just because of what they are aspirationally but the language used to convey them.

“Promotes a Culture of Ethics and Accountability: Champions an environment where all employees adhere to ethical principles and professional standards and are accountable for following procedures, regulations, and laws. Neither compromises values and standards nor tolerates such concessions from other employees. Takes responsibility for own actions and their consequences; sensitizes and socializes others to the importance of being accountable.

Engages, Motivates, and Inspires: Creates positive energy and a sense of camaraderie, and helps others feel personally invested in their work and the agency’s mission. Seeks an understanding of all sides and strives for win-win solutions. Demonstrates resiliency; maintains poise, focus, and instills a sense of realistic optimism, even under adversity or uncertainty.”

Heartening to see these leadership competencies emphasized as the National Archives strives to improve its management culture and move to new ways of doing business. As part of an initiative led by Deputy Archivist Deb Wall, NARA just has developed an excellent new Handbook for supervisors and managers, with realistic, practical guidance for new supervisors and veteran supervisors, both.

Of the general competencies, some are more visible than others within the library and archives and records profession. One you can see in-person and online as people (not just from NARA) engage is this one:

“Influences/Negotiates with Others – Promotes ideas and proposals persuasively. Shapes others’ opinions, convinces or persuades others, and gains support through own actions/examples or persuasion in an ethical manner. Achieves mutually satisfying agreements in negotiations with others by listening to different objectives, effectively communicating own objectives, and seeking common ground and collaborative situations.”

Yesterday on Twitter, I saw people talking about a contractor job posting which seems basically to be a data entry job to support a Navy component.  There’s no template for success at NARA, some people come in at higher entry levels, some at lower ones, depending on job requirements and opportunities.  The important thing to do is to get your foot in the door.

Look at the archives technicians my sister photographed in 1994 in the data entry section of NARA’s security classified records declasification unit.  One (Jay Bosanko) now is Chief Operating Officer.  We’re pictured in 2011 when he was Executive for Agency Services.  Another (Neil Carmichael) is the Program Manager, Insider Threat Program.  And another (Joe Scanlon) is Freedom of Information and Privacy Act Officer.

Of the Competencies NARA lists for supervisors, managers, and executives, I focused on what looks for among its highest level officials.  (NARA uses the federal Office of Personnel Management Competencies.)  Among the listed competencies are technical credibility, political savvy, strategic thinking, listening, and learning, as well as guiding.  Oh, and also influencing and negotiating.

I went “yessss!” as I read that the expert level for executives for influencing is characterized as “Negotiates with leaders for changes to reorganization design based on feedback from subordinates.”  Listening is a key part of Open Leadership.

Another executive quality is “Resilience – Deals effectively with pressure; remains optimistic and persistent, even under adversity.  Recovers quickly from setbacks.”  Very important!  And a very attractive quality in people I know at NARA who handle this well.   It is very important to be able to respond “to setbacks by developing alternative approaches to determine the best course of action.”

Because setbacks happen.  Often.  (See:  embrace chaos.)  So, too, failures. Which is why among the NARA executive competencies, I especially like seeing a characteristic of the expert level on “Results” being “Revises and communicates to employees expectations and methods for achieving results in light of failed or delayed agency-level project[s].”

You learn to recognize early on who potentially has these executive skills.  And who might make a good supervisor or manager.  Nowadays, some of the clues are “on the record” in the electronic footprints people leave in various forums, including Social Media.

Nobody walks on water!  What is important is what you do when things don’t go as expected or planned.  Backing up and trying something else can lead to success after failure.  Which is why good leaders show a mix of adaptability and flexibility along with determination and resolve.

How you develop that mix is individual and ineffable.  Learning and development come from ways we understand (case studies, trial and error, examples of what works and what doesn’t) and ways that may seem inchoate.   Including personal joy and pain.  All part of the journey!