Frequently Asked Questions
You talk about "leading" instead of "leadership." Why?
"Leading" keeps the focus where it belongs: on what must be done in this specific situation in order to achieve what is required. A person can be said to lead successfully when they intentionally make it possible for participants to make their necessary contributions to the mutual endeavor.
Contrast that with focusing on the individual person doing the leading, which is where talk of "leadership" directs our attention. Certainly a person's skills, beliefs, attitudes, traits, state and motivations are relevant to their leading – that's a bit like saying that a chef's training and experience are relevant to the dish being cooked.
But successful cooking is essentially about the ingredients at hand and the person being fed; when the cooking is essentially about the cook, the meal suffers. So too, successful leading is essentially about what needs to be accomplished in this specific situation and who must participate in achieving it; when the leading is essentially about the leader, the achievement suffers.
The Putman Group's primary emphasis is consistently on action and achievement. We have found that keeping this in focus is the central requirement for developing extraordinary competence in achieving results in organizations.
What is Descriptive Psychology (and why should I care?)
Descriptive Psychology makes it possible to talk about organizations, people, business relationships and organizational results in great depth and detail, in our ordinary language. This puts us in a position to develop extraordinary competence in achieving results in organizations.
You don't need to know the intricacies of double-entry bookkeeping in order to become highly competent at reading and using P&L statements – so long as the people generating your P&Ls are thoroughly competent bookkeepers. Likewise, you don't need to know the intricacies of Descriptive Psychology in order to become highly competent with the methods you will find here, because the people behind these methods are thoroughly competent Descriptive Psychologists.
On the other hand, if you do want to know Descriptive Psychology in more detail, please feel free. You can start here.
Is "participant" just another way of saying "stakeholder?"
No – and the difference is very important. The term "stakeholder" was originally introduced as a counter-balance to organizational hard-liners who framed all decisions in light of what is best for stockholders, making their stake in the organization the sole determining factor. Whenever "maximizing stockholder value" appeared, it was easy to substitute "stakeholder" as a means of expanding the conversation. This did some good.
Unfortunately, "stakeholder" is too broad, and not really on the mark. You can make the case for a tremendous variety of stakeholders in any organization who "should" be considered in making decisions. But who are the key stakeholders – the ones who in practical terms must be included? And what makes them key?
That's where "participant" comes in. An organization exists to create value. Anyone whose actions directly and intentionally contribute to that value creation is a participant – and their views are crucial to creating sustained organizational success.
Why the emphasis on "competence?"
We emphasize competence because:
- Competence is the root of achievement.
- Competence makes the difference between ordinary and extraordinary organizational results.
- Competence makes real what knowledge and ideas only talk about.
Like the drunk who lost his keys in a dark alley but looks for them under the streetlamp "because the light is better here," people looking for the keys to creating extraordinary results in organizations consistently deal in the knowledge component of achievement – concepts, models and ideas – because that's where academics know how to look. Unfortunately, as the endless "flavors of the month" attest, that's not where the keys are. Knowledge has value – in support of competence, not in place of it.
In emphasizing competence we are dealing with something significantly more fundamental than "competencies"– the current popular term for skills and knowledge. These tend to be lists of skills with some suggestions for how to "develop" them. Competence can indeed be developed. But you wouldn't expect to become a great putter by reading a few books on putting and watching some instructional videos, and you won't become extraordinarily competent at creating results in organizations that way, either.
I have a business to run and I'm not a psychologist. Why not pay attention to the results and let the "relationships" take care of themselves?
If we were talking about the "how does he feel about me" stuff most people think of when they think about relationships, I would tend to agree with you. Those are social relationships, and while they are important to people, they are not really central to business results.
But we're talking about business relationships, which is another thing entirely. Ignoring business relationships is like driving your sports car with no concern for roads or bridges – it might be an exhilarating ride for a while, but you're not likely to get very far that way. Relationships form the infrastructure through which organizations achieve results, and ignoring them will insure that your actual results are ordinary at best.
You can begin digging into business relationships and specifically how to develop them here.
