Hi folks – I’m back after some time off.  Hope all of you in the Northern Hemisphere are enjoying your summer!

A number of years ago I remember reading the quote:
“Good fences make good neighbours.”

When I first read it, I didn’t like it.  In fact, I still don’t like it that much.
Apparently, neither did poet Robert Frost.

This quote comes from Robert Frost’s 1914 poem Mending Wall, wherein Frost questions the notion.  Upon doing a little bit of research, it seems this proverb has been around for at least a couple hundred years.  Benjamin Franklin cited something similar in Poor Richard’s Almanack (a yearly pamphlet he published for about 26 years in the early to mid 1700′s).  He said, “Love your neighbor; yet don’t pull down your hedge.”

I’m talking about something  a little different than this, however:

By boundaries, I don’t mean physical boundaries.
And, I’m thinking of all kinds of relationships – not just neighbours.

What I’m saying is that it is useful for both (or all) parties in a relationship to have boundaries, and to know where those boundaries lie.

Here are some of the kinds of relationships where I think boundaries are helpful:

• Between colleagues who are also friends;
• Between a boss and his/her subordinate;
• Between a parent and child;
• Between family members who do business together;
• Between husband and wife;
• Between one business unit head and another;
• Between the legislative, executive, and judicial branch of governments.
• the list goes on.

In some of my past relationships, I have been too flexible about this, and it has caused problems for all parties involved.  I’m not advocating all kinds of rigid constructs that create artificial and unnecessary distance between you and another person.  But I am talking about practical, clearly delineated boundaries that help define roles, responsibilities, and yes, places where you can and cannot tread, figuratively speaking.

I’m also not talking about yet another form of power and control.  I’m talking about respect of the individual and his or her role and identity.

To great relationships.

Huh?  This doesn’t make sense, you say.

Let’s take a case study: the recent World Cup Soccer Tournament – THE  SINGLE BIGGEST SPORTING EVENT ON EARTH.

All the focus, drama, and hype is built around the “clash of titans”,  the winners and losers, the competition and struggle.

But what’s missing from the picture?  The structure surrounding it that makes this all possible.

By “structure”, I mean:

• The rules of the game;
• The definition of winning and losing;
• The agreement to enforcement provisions around the rules;
• The agreement about the existence and role a referee (i.e. arbitrator/judge).

ALL of this – the winners and losers, the competition, the sustainability – only works if “enemies” are willing to collaborate about HOW they’re going to compete.  Hmmm.  Strange contradiction, no?

If you stop to think about it, the same applies in business.  Take the banking industry, for example.  There are rules of the game, regulations, attempts to make the playing field fair. When these break down, we ALL lose.  Not just one financial institution vs another, but the customers, the government, the taxpayer: EVERYONE LOSES.

This also applies to life.  We have rules in place to protect the competing demands of citizens.  Even in WAR, there are rules of engagement.  Bizarre, but true.  Having said this, there are plenty of (very sad) examples where the rules of engagement in war have been broken.   All of war is a tragedy in my opinion (and a massive waste of energy and life), however things get even worse when there are no boundaries at all.

So where does all of this leave us?

My key message is that competition is fine and healthy, AND, it only really works well when it is bounded by/supported by a structure of collaboration.

Competition does not exist in a vacuum.  It coexists with cooperation (aka collaboration).  In almost any setting: a team, a family, a department in a company, a country – anywhere, competition coexists with cooperation.

So, don’t fight it.  Embrace it.  Acknowledge it.  Tell your customer or colleague that while it’s clear that some of your interests are in conflict, many more of them are actually aligned or just plain different.  Explain to them (and yourself) that you’ll all do better if you acknowledge the competitive aspects of your situation and manage them fairly.  This will give you the foundation to leverage the non-competitive components – which often vastly outweighs the competition in terms of its significance and value.

Let me end where I began.  Let’s tie this all back to the World Cup that just finished:

If people focused their energy on fighting (competing) about every little thing – all the rules, where it will be held, which player gets the glory, what time the games should start, what the rules of the game should  be, who gets to wear what colour jersey, and so on, the whole thing would not exist.

Said differently:

WITHOUT COLLABORATION,

THERE WOULD BE NO WORLD CUP “COMPETITION”.

Keep that in mind the next time you’re getting ready to beat up your counterpart in a business deal.

I remember participating in a course many years ago and hearing the course leader say this:

If you are powerful, you don’t need to use force.
and
People often use force when they don’t feel powerful.

This notion really resonated at the time, and since then I have seen this distinction play out again and again.  What do I mean when I use these words?

By power, I mean “internal” power: strength of character, integrity, credibility, a strong and positive reputation, a history of deeds matching words, quiet confidence, a deep sense of knowing, conviction, moral high ground, and so on.   These things are developed over time and generally have to be earned.

By force, I mean more of an “external” thing: money, political position, organizational rank in a hierarchy, physical strength, military resources, etc.

Notice how different these are?

Using force can produce a short term result in your favour, but comes at considerable cost and is often unsustainable over the long term.  We often use force because of our fear or our greed.

In contrast, power is often not used intentionally or explicitly.  The party in question simply “has” power because of who they are, what they have accomplished, how they have treated people, and what he or she has done to develop himself or herself as a person.  Thus, in their interactions with people, this power is simply present.  It commands respect.  It causes people to listen to and believe what they are saying.  It attracts people, often inspires people, and in fact often puts them at ease. It tends to be more sustainable, and produce more sustainable outcomes.

I invite you to observe yourself the next time you’re trying to influence someone or get something done in your life.  Are you being powerful in your approach, or are you using force?  What is the impact of each strategy?  What are the costs and benefits?

I believe you’ll see that investing in and building your power is worth your while.  You’ll appreciate the decreasing need to force your way through.

Two weekends ago I attended an AMAZING course led by a gentleman named Robin Sharma (www.robinsharma.com).  His specialty is leadership, but this course was about living the life you really want for yourself and awakening the best version of who you are: your authentic self.

It was a most inspiring weekend and contained many pieces of advice on getting back to the truest version of who you are, and living your life from that place.

Robin is author of the international bestseller “The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari”, among several other books, and has many useful products and offerings on the topic of leadership and greatness.  He himself is authentic, grounded, humble, and walks his talk.  The world can use more people like Robin.

If you’re looking to take your game up in life and get back to who you really are, check out some of his stuff.  I recommend his work highly.

Sometimes in a relationship, you have to make the choice between being loyal to that particular person, or doing something that they won’t be happy about but you know is “the right thing”.

Likely, this will result in a conflict between you and them.  But, NOT doing the right thing will only result in a bigger conflict later.

I’ll use an example to explain what I mean.

Imagine you’re in a team working on a project with another team.  Over time, a pattern has developed where during project meetings, one of your teammates (Brandon, a long-time colleague and friend of yours) repeatedly attacks Sanjay, a member of the other team about an issue that keeps surfacing.  You agree with part of Brandon’s point, but you don’t like how he’s approaching the situation or how he treats Sanjay.

You’ve said something to Brandon about it before, but he hasn’t changed his approach and it’s really affecting the team dynamics adversely.  You know that you’re the one he will listen to most, based on your relationship.  But, when you raised the subject the first time, he responded pretty negatively and wasn’t very open to what you had to say.

You face a choice:

Stay loyal to Brandon and leave the issue alone

OR

Engage the topic with him, which you know will create a conflict between the two of you.

It’s clear that in any given moment, the downside of engaging the topic outweighs the upside.   But it’s also clear that NOT engaging the topic will cause the situation to continue deteriorating.  It’s time for action.

If you really think about it, though, the situation as it stands is not benefiting Brandon either.  His actions have already made a bad name for him in this project, and bad news spreads quickly.  Furthermore, he’s not getting the result he wants from the other side anyway.  So in a sense, you are being disloyal to Brandon if you don’t engage the difficult discussion with him.

Unchanged, everybody loses in this situation, but if you’re willing to take the problem on, everyone can win.

I’m still in France as I write this – and the odds look very good now that I’ll actually get on a flight departing tomorrow.  Yippee!  I won’t count my chickens before they’re hatched, but I am indeed quite optimistic after reading the latest newspaper reports.

I’m writing this quick entry to highlight a point I referred to in passing in my last posting.

For me, one of the reminders this experience brings with it is just how powerless we are in the face of nature’s great forces.  I’m reminded of the famous quote:

Life is what happens while you’re busy making plans.
– John Lennon

So true indeed.  This volcano, or the recent earthquakes in China and Chile, or the massive earthquake at the beginning of the year in Haiti, or any other natural “disaster” shows us time and again who’s really in charge – Mother Nature.  I think it’s healthy for us to remember this, and to maintain a good dose of humility. After all,

The planet does not belong to us; we belong to it.

This is a quote I read somewhere quite recently, from an aboriginal leader.  Unfortunately I can’t remember his name at this time.

We humans get all high and mighty too often, thinking we’re the ones who run the show, thinking everything is up to us.  I think we have plenty of evidence to the contrary.  This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make plans, set goals, etc.  I’m a huge fan of doing that and I have used it to accomplish great things in my life so far.  But, I think it’s a good idea to keep in mind that there are many variables we don’t have control over, and we will have to adjust along the way.

To healthy humility.

I’m writing from France where I just spent the week teaching at an Executive Education organization.  It was very enjoyable and went very well.

I am now “stranded” as a result of airport closures in the wake of the volcano’s eruption in Iceland.  If all went according to original plan, I would be in the air right now on my way back home.  But, Mother Nature had other plans for us!

As I scanned the various world newspapers this morning, I kept seeing headlines like “Travel Misery as thousands stranded across Europe”.   I couldn’t help but thinking: why does it have to be seen as misery?  Sure, for people caught at airports earlier in the week, it would have been a major hassle, but still, WE CAN ALL CHOOSE OUR RESPONSE TO THE SITUATION.

Which response would  you rather choose?  Do you want to spend your time being annoyed, frustrated, disappointed, angry?  OR, would you rather let that go and instead focus on how you can MAKE THIS A FUN ADVENTURE?  Sure, I’d like to be home to see my family.  I miss them and I want to be with them.   I really would like to be on my way there, but the situation is beyond my control.

So, I have a choice:
Spend my time being miserable; or
Accept what I can’t change and focus on what I CAN change -
my attitude and how I use my time.

I’m taking Option # 2.

To be fair, there are far worse places (and times) to be stranded than a nice small town near Paris in the springtime.  Absolutely.  But even here, I see lots of frustrated executives around me, spending all their time trying to book this train or that, find this option or the other.  It’s worth investing some time in that, but how much?  And, even while they invest the time, how about managing their emotional state differently?

More importantly, a broader level I think there’s a good reminder in here for all of us.  We humans think we’re so high and mighty.  We think WE run the show on earth.  This volcano is yet another example of how we really don’t.  The more we accept that, the better off we are, I believe.  Mother Nature has just sent us a little message, “Hey people, don’t forget who’s REALLY in charge”.

So I’m off for a walk into town.  I’ll do some reading, do some errands, and focus on enjoying myself and making it an adventure.

I wish the same change in perspective for the  many thousands who are fighting against the situation instead of accepting it.