Leader to Leader - Join in the Conversation

I’ve found it helpful to seek answers to these questions by accepting the fact that we are lost—as a global culture, as organizations, and perhaps as individual leaders. We are in new territory, this brave new world that operates at hyper speed, hyper stress, and hyper irrationality. Our old maps for creating capacity no longer apply; in fact they only get us more lost. So I’ve been focused on how we get “unlost,” how we open to the information that will tell us where we really are, the very information we need to create new maps that offer us a way forward.

I’m curious whether “lost” feels to you like an accurate descriptor of our culture and/or your organization. Before you respond, read about the behaviors of people who are lost in life-threatening circumstances in the wilderness.

Predictable Behaviors of Lost People

1. People who are lost at first deny they’re lost. They’re confident that they do know where they are, they just can’t find any familiar signs. Everything’s okay, they still know where they’re going, the maps are still correct. But gradually, confronted with strange and unfamiliar sights, anxiety seeps in. They speed up their activities, urgently wanting to verify that they’re not lost. Those lost on a mountain walk faster or go in circles; those lost in a failing project work faster, longer, harder, and go in circles.

2. At this point, doubt and uncertainty creep in. People become angry and impatient, pushing aside any information that doesn’t confirm their map. They become desperate to find the smallest scrap of information that proves they know where they are. They reject all other information; they treat as enemy the very information that would help them get unlost, pushing it and its messengers aside.

3. When this strategy fails, people reach the point when they can no longer deny that they’re lost. Fear and panic set in; stressed and scared, their brains stop working. They can’t think straight, so every action they take is senseless, only creating more exhaustion and more problems.

4. By now, confused and panicked, people search frantically for any little sign that’s familiar, the smallest shred of evidence that makes them feel unlost. But they are lost, so this strategy fails and they continue to deteriorate.

Do you recognize any of these behaviors? Have you observed them in your colleagues or in yourself? Do they describe what’s going on in society? Are we lost?

People lost in the wilderness, whose immediate survival is at stake, have only one option left at this point. They must accept their situation: they are truly lost. As Laurence Gonzales, author of Extreme Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why, states, “Like it or not, you must make a new mental map of where you are or you will die. To survive, you must find yourself. Then it won’t matter where you are. Not being lost is not a matter of getting back to where you started from; it is a decision not to be lost wherever you happen to find yourself. It’s simply saying, ‘I’m not lost, I’m right here’” (italics added).

Gonzales’s stages of being lost, in my experience, precisely describe the behaviors common in our organizations these days. How many of us are exhausted and overwhelmed? How many of us think that solutions can be found by working harder, faster, with more urgency? How many of us experience a sense of dread or foreboding as we realize that things aren’t working as planned? How many of us desperately grasp for even the smallest shred of evidence to reassure us that things are not as bad as they are?

Can we acknowledge that we are lost, that our familiar practices and maps no longer provide the information we need to find our way through? Being lost is frightening only until we admit that we are lost. Once we stop denying our situation, fear dissipates. Our brains turn back on, our thinking becomes clear again, and we can recognize the truth of our situation. It becomes possible to settle down, quiet our minds, look around, and discover that there is more than enough information available to create a new map that accurately describes where we are, a map that can help us find our way.

The Darkening Storm of Global Culture

So where are we? How to describe this world that confounds our attempts to change it, that frustrates, exhausts, and imperils us? What are its features, its characteristics? This brave new world feels like it materialized suddenly, out of nowhere, but it came from somewhere. It is the result of many different values, decisions, and influences interacting, intensifying, strengthening, and changing as they fed on one another and, finally, emerged as a powerful culture, with new and different characteristics that could not have been predicted.

Here is how I would describe our present world. I offer these statements so that we might see fully and accurately where we are, what we’re up against as leaders. I no longer believe we can turn around these destructive dynamics at a global scale, but I fervently believe that as leaders we can work to counteract them within our own organizations. Using the values, ideals, and practices we have learned to cherish, leaders can create islands of capacity in the midst of this darkening storm. Although the culture is lost, we do not have to be. But our first task is to see as clearly as possible what’s going on in the tumult around us.

As I contemplate writing these descriptions, they are simultaneously obvious and depressing. This is a familiar experience for me—moments of clarity accompanied by feelings of overwhelm and grief. But I’ve learned if I let these negative emotions in and just sit quietly with them, they can result in clear seeing. With clarity, I can discern the path of right action and right work.

This brave new world is

A world of emotions moving to extremes, where anger becomes rage, opponents become enemies, dislike becomes hatred, sorrow becomes despair

A world closing shut, where individuals, groups, ethnicities, and governments fortify their positions behind impermeable boundaries

A world where critical thinking scarcely exists, where there is no distinction between facts and opinions, between science and beliefs

A world where information no longer makes a difference, where we hear only what we want to hear, always confirmed and never contradicted

A world desperate for certainty and safety, choosing coercion and violence as the means to achieve this

A world solving its crises by brinksmanship and last-minute deals, no matter how important or disastrous the consequences may be

A world growing more meaningless as the values of consumption, greed, and self-interest take hold

A world of people who formerly felt powerful and constructive now feeling powerless and exhausted

Perhaps these statements confirm the work you’re doing if that work tackles one or more of these problems. You may be actively working for social justice, civility, the environment, democracy, health equity, food justice, healthy communities. You may be leading programs that teach nonviolence to children, listening skills to adults, participative processes to communities, critical thinking skills to teams, high-engagement strategies to leaders. Most of my friends and close colleagues are engaged in one or more of these causes, as I have been also. Our work must continue, without a doubt. Yet to be wise leaders, we need to understand the powerful, destructive dynamics of this time and not get caught up in them ourselves.

Or perhaps after reading this negative list, you want to tell me of the positive things going on in this world, the good outcomes you’re getting from your work, how you are making a difference. Please recall that my intent is for us to see this world in all its life-destroying detail and not grasp, as lost people always do, for small bits of evidence that the old maps still work. As skilled leaders, how do we find our way out of these destructive dynamics? First, we must know where we are. Only with accurate maps can we find the strength and confidence to provide meaningful leadership in a terrible time.

I encourage you to sit with this list for a while and, if need be, let it lead you through the stages of denial, hopelessness, and grief until you arrive at the quiet place of accepting what is. We’re not lost, we’re right here. This is how we discover the path of clear seeing, of sane behavior, and go forward with our work wholeheartedly.

Practices for Creating New Maps

Although the world is becoming more lost, as leaders we have the means to shape our organizations as islands of capacity, places that encourage people to think their way out of problems and dilemmas rather than frantically scrambling about. Here are a few suggestions for how to develop new maps; these apply to any situation where, if people continue as they’re doing, it will only get them into more trouble, such as pushing harder with a failing project, using worn-out processes that aren’t working, or going round and round with an issue, unable to solve it.

1. Admit we’re lost. As a leader, you have the greatest vantage point—you can see the patterns and behaviors of the entire team or system. If you see that people are behaving like those lost, your first task is to find ways for people to recognize that for themselves. Most often, lost people don’t want to know that they’re lost. So you can’t just announce it at a meeting. When people are stressed and overwhelmed, our brains basically stop functioning. Under stress, we lose the capacity to think, to see the bigger picture, to think forward, to make moral judgments. We become good only at tasks and minutiae, doing those with greater urgency as our stress increases.

Your first task as the leader is to turn people’s brains back on, and this is only possible by creating an environment that offers rest, calm, settling down. You can’t do this during a staff meeting or in rooms where you usually race through tasks and agendas. The setting is crucial: it needs to signal we’re slowing down, coming together, and even enjoying each other’s company. Food helps. And the group can’t be too large, no more than twenty or so. For larger groups, host multiple small groups, or use a process such as the World Cafe that encourages intimate conversations in large groups. (See www.theworldcafe.com.)

In this relaxed atmosphere, start a reflective conversation on the subject of being lost. Perhaps circulate the stages of being lost described here, including Gonzales’s final statement that “we’re not lost, we’re right here.” These stages are a lens for us to see our own and our colleagues’ behavior. This rich conversation makes visible key dynamics: how we treat disconfirming information; how we treat each other; how stressed and overwhelmed we are.

It’s important to do this in a conversational format; this strengthens relationships and people realize we’re all in the same boat. Recognizing we’re lost together is a very different experience from feeling lost alone. And Gonzales is right: we realize we’re not lost, we’re right here. We have what we need to get unlost, which is each other’s perspectives, intelligence, caring, and companionship.

2. Create new maps. At this point, the energy of the group usually shifts dramatically—people become open and curious, eager to find a way out of the current situation. Just as if you were huddled together on a mountainside, appreciate that every person present might have information and perspectives that prove essential for getting out of this predicament. Use any process that respects each person’s perspective and makes it easy for them to speak truthfully about what they’re seeing. There are many good processes out there: Circles; Councils; Open Space Technology; After Action Reviews, and others.

Of course, taking time to engage everyone is radical leadership these days! Nowadays, when leaders start to feel nervous or panic, they withdraw and huddle with a few trusted advisors, leaving the organization to fend for itself while they figure things out. This approach—far too common these days—only increases staff’s feelings of anxiety and fear, which leads them to disengage and blame the leader for whatever the problem is. This chain reaction only results in more failures and greater desperation. To become unlost, leaders have to come out of their offices and engage with staff fully, with deep appreciation for the insights that will be offered by everyone.

3. Make it up as you go along. As we play with new maps and gradually find our way out of the wilderness, we would do well to recognize that everything we try is an experiment. I listened to a scientist state that “these days, if you’re not making it up as you go along, you’re out of touch with reality, because reality is changing all the time.”

If our new maps are experiments and we act like good scientists, we’ll pay attention to the data we get back. We’ll welcome all information and not push away what we don’t want to hear. We’ll involve diverse people to get the benefit of multiple perspectives and views. And we’ll treat mistakes as what they truly are, opportunities to learn from experience and do better next time.

What I’ve described here—taking time to notice where we are, reengaging with each other, reflecting together, learning from experience—these are simple processes that used to be how we did our work. Now  more common are the behaviors of the lost: panicked people going round in circles, quick to blame and unable to think. It takes conscious leadership to help people notice how lost we are and provide these simple processes for discovering useful new maps.

I hold in my heart the vision of what’s possible if we use our leadership not to change the larger system but to do what we can, where we are, to create places and people who use the values and practices that support our best qualities. Amid all the noise and tumult, it’s up to us to step forward as those rare leaders who create the conditions to bring people together in calm, reflective ways, who make it possible for people to rediscover their capacity to think and to reconnect with one another. If we sit together, surrender our need to blame, reclaim our wonderful human minds, and use all the information available, we can find our way through to solutions. And even when these solutions don’t work as we’d hoped, we’ll learn from them, feel renewed from working well together, and have stamina for the work ahead. We’ll shift from the behaviors of the lost, exhausted, and overwhelmed, to discover our creativity and capacity. And we’ll realize, as countless people have over millennia, that we humans can find our way through anything as long as we’re together.

Leading Out of the Wilderness                            

When people are lost, they don’t know any other solution except to frantically keep using the old maps that got them lost in the first place.  Getting unlost is not a change in geography; it’s a change of mind. We have to recognize that our old maps have failed us, and that we’re capable of developing new maps out of our current predicament if we calm down and gather together with the recognition that “We’re not lost. We’re right here.”

This needs to be a collective recognition, not just an announcement by the leader. It’s up to the leader to call people together, using one of the many well-honed processes that simultaneously lead to good collective thinking and forge new relationships among staff. These days, there are many processes that work to fully engage people to work together both to understand their dilemmas and use critical thinking to solve them.

However, it’s essential to note that any of these processes requires a change in the beliefs usually held by leaders who sit at the top of a hierarchy and are accustomed to top-down decision making. Here are some of the major beliefs that underpin participative processes in general:

1.       All problems and challenges arise from complex causes and conditions.

2.       We need multiple and diverse perspectives to see and understand this complexity.

3.       Everyone’s perspective is of potential value in helping us see complexity clearly.

4.       Frequently, the solutions we need are already here, already being practiced somewhere in the organization.

5.       People support solutions they had a role in creating.

6.       People act responsibly when they care about an issue.

7.       People yearn to be back in thoughtful, productive conversations with colleagues where they can discover solutions that work.

These beliefs stand in stark contrast to the familiar ways leaders make decisions these days. Leaders seem to believe that the tougher and more complex the issue, the more they need to hide away until they come up with a solution that they then announce to the organization.  Predictably, their solutions fail to account for the complexity of the situation, and invariably they use processes that have failed many times over. This approach not only fails to solve issues, but it is terribly destructive of the very things we need to get unlost: clear thinking, trusting relationships, new approaches and innovations. Only by taking the time to engage staff, with their diverse and unique perspectives, will we be able to create the new maps so necessary for this time.

Margaret (Meg) Wheatley, Ed.D., is a well-respected writer, speaker, and teacher for how we can accomplish our work, sustain our relationships, and willingly step forward to serve in this troubling time. She has written several bestselling books, beginning with her path-breaking Leadership and the New Science, first published in 1992. She is cofounder and president emerita of the Berkana Institute (www.berkana.org). Berkana has been a leader in discovering new organizational forms based on a coherent theory of how living systems change. Wheatley received her doctorate in organizational behavior and change from Harvard University and a master’s in media ecology from New York University.

I recently had the privilege of chairing the National Academies (NAS) committee that produced the report Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America’s Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads. An earlier NAS report had highlighted the urgent need to increase American competitiveness in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Our committee was charged with examining the impact of the country’s changing demographics on achieving that goal.

Members of the committee were not surprised that only a fifth of underrepresented minority students who begin college in STEM majors complete degrees in those areas. We were, however, surprised to learn that only 32 percent of whites and 42 percent of Asian Americans who start as STEM majors graduate in these disciplines. Ultimately, only 6 percent of the bachelor’s degrees earned in America each year are in science or engineering. It’s generally been accepted that many students who begin in pre-med or pre-engineering change their majors. While people often assume that the reason is that these students are thinking about careers that pay more money, the truth is that many who leave STEM fields change their focus after struggling in first- and second-year STEM courses. These classes are commonly known as “weed-out” or “barrier” courses.

This is my 25th year at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), and my 20th year as president. When I first started as the vice provost responsible for the undergraduate academic experience, I was struck by the poor performance of many minority students, particularly in science and engineering. After analyzing the data, I realized that many of the majority students also were not succeeding in these disciplines. My colleagues and I decided to start with the students with the weakest backgrounds to develop the strategies that might lead to greater success. With the support of Baltimore philanthropist Robert Meyerhoff and a number of national agencies and other foundations, we started the Meyerhoff Scholars Program in 1989 to provide academic, social, and financial support to African American males interested in research careers in science and engineering. The program has broadened to include women, other minority students, and majority students interested in diversity issues, and it has been widely recognized as a national model in preparing students for research careers. UMBC is now the nation’s leading predominantly white institution in the number of African American bachelor’s degree recipients who go on to complete STEM PhDs and MD/PhDs.

The program also has led to wide-ranging changes focused on the success of all students. The program and the lessons derived from it have helped us fundamentally change UMBC’s culture to create an atmosphere of innovation and entrepreneurship.

The process of culture change involves critical self-reflection, inclusive dialogue, and careful analysis. We view the culture of the institution as manifesting itself in every aspect of daily life on the campus. It is reflected in the questions we ask (and also how and of whom we ask them), the achievements we measure and highlight (and those we ignore), the way we discuss and learn from mistakes, the initiatives we support (or don’t support), and, most important, the process we use for determining academic and administrative priorities. Culture shapes our perception of what is possible, both as individuals and as an institution. Institutional culture can make certain problems seem intractable. For example, at some universities, student retention is regarded primarily as a staff responsibility. As a result, it is fairly rare for faculty to focus on retention initiatives beyond fulfilling their classroom responsibilities. Similarly, in the culture of many institutions, minority student success is viewed primarily as the responsibility of minority staff members working in minority programs, rather than as a broader priority.

In my presentations on the academic role of presidents each summer at Harvard’s Seminar for New Presidents, I frequently hear the question, “How do you change attitudes to make change possible?” I am convinced that you start small with a pilot project and a few people who are interested in raising questions and studying a particular problem. You also need to be rigorous in your approach. Too often, we make assumptions about what will and will not work without doing the homework of asking hard questions, struggling to answer them, collecting data, and conducting the analysis that will inform our decisions. It’s impossible to change everybody’s minds immediately, but if you can get a few people to keep an open mind, you can make progress as they begin asking questions and considering different possibilities in the spirit of innovation.

In the ’80s, no African American educated in this country had ever earned an A in an upper-level science course at UMBC. Our goal was to create a comprehensive, research-based initiative based on specific factors associated with student success. The change process started with focus group discussions on minority student underachievement involving students, faculty, and staff. While institutional culture represents subjective values, changing culture requires rigor in both quantitative and qualitative analysis, making these inclusive conversations essential. Change is possible when institutions look carefully at themselves, identify strengths and weaknesses, recognize challenges, and understand how responses to those challenges can lead to desired outcomes.

These campus conversations and research into other programs across the country informed the development of the Meyerhoff Program. Key components include focused recruitment of academically prepared students, a summer bridge program for academic enrichment and community building, scholarship support, faculty involvement, substantive research experiences for students, academic advising and mentoring, active involvement of the entire campus, a strong sense of community among the students, communication with students’ families, continuous evaluation, and emphasis on high achievement, study groups, tutoring, and preparing for graduate school.

Through our experience with the Meyerhoff Program, we learned more generally about the importance of having students work in groups and the value of tutoring. STEM faculty recognized a benefit in giving students feedback earlier in the semester so they could make necessary adjustments, and also began emphasizing clear expectations. For more than two decades, the program has been a community of scholars who work together in labs, form study groups to master coursework, and consult closely with faculty and staff.

Regular assessments have been invaluable as well. From the start, the program’s strengths, weaknesses, and outcomes have been rigorously assessed by teams of independent experts. In these evaluations, there has been no substitute for specificity—knowing how individual students and groups of students are performing in specific classes and majors. We have learned, for example, that we need to examine different groups based on such factors as gender, race, major, socioeconomic background, level of high-school preparation, and college performance.

One of the most important lessons I’ve learned over the years is that institutions with strong leadership appreciate the importance of empowering a cadre of people to lead, bringing different perspectives and strengths. My colleagues and I focus on identifying good thinkers who have similar values and who bring both analytical skills and passion to the work. For me, after 20 years as president, nothing has been more important than identifying other people who can work together to shape the vision and direction of the institution. I often remind colleagues about the importance of transparency. When people trust leaders, those leaders can admit to mistakes and be forgiven. When leaders attempt to hide mistakes, people lose all confidence in them.

As we established the Meyerhoff Program, some of our colleagues thought it was unfair to have a program for minorities, arguing that whatever we did for one student we should do for all. However, we were able to build support for the program both by carefully documenting our success and by providing opportunities for others to become involved. In this and other efforts, we’ve had to identify faculty and staff who were willing to keep an open mind and envision different ways of doing things.

Students at UMBC were closely involved in the development of the Meyerhoff Program, and, with the program’s success, students of all races began to ask for expanded support in science and engineering. In addition to encouraging group work and expanding tutorial centers, we started broader curricular and pedagogical initiatives. For example, in chemistry, faculty members rethought the first-year curriculum to facilitate active learning through collaborative interactions. They developed the Chemistry Discovery Center, a facility where students work in small groups during two-hour weekly “discovery learning” sessions on worksheets crafted to guide them in the development of central ideas and principles. Students rotate through such roles as supervisor, recorder, and communicator. Instructors in discovery sessions act as facilitators, guiding students as they develop theories and solve problems.

The results since the Discovery Center opened in 2005 have been striking. The rate of students failing the course has been cut in half, and the department has seen a dramatic increase in majors (a 70 percent increase in chemistry and a more than 40 percent increase in biochemistry). In other disciplines at UMBC, including psychology, similar efforts relying on group study and collaboration, technology, and active learning have yielded positive results, including higher retention, improved grades, and increased coverage of content during the semester. (These course-redesign efforts are part of an overall University System of Maryland initiative.) Building on lessons learned in chemistry, we opened a new facility in 2010 to encourage active learning and collaboration in physics, mathematics, and biology as these departments redesign their introductory classes. The college is providing ongoing training and support to encourage the development of novel and innovative instructional approaches that make full use of this facility.

We are assessing what works and making adjustments where necessary. For example, with National Science Foundation (NSF) funding, we are evaluating the impact of various approaches on the performance of first-year STEM majors. First-year students participating in the study have been randomly assigned to one of four different treatments. The results will enable us to answer central questions about the instructional approaches and support services that most effectively increase the probability that a first-year student aspiring to major in a STEM subject will achieve that goal. Another example involves our participation in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s National Experiment in Undergraduate Science Education, or NEXUS Project. The goal of this project is to develop and share effective approaches for teaching interdisciplinary science. UMBC is developing course modules that bring mathematical modeling into introductory biology. The modules will be designed so they can be used at other institutions, and a key element will be a focus on student competencies.

Building on its success at the undergraduate level, UMBC has developed a number of programs focused on increasing both access and success in our graduate programs. Multi-campus initiatives funded by NSF and the National Institutes of Health focus on increasing minority student success in STEM programs. Additionally, our work with the Council of Graduate Schools on the PhD Completion Project is providing new insights on the factors associated with doctoral completion and attrition in STEM fields, humanities, and social sciences.

One of the most transformational initiatives in recent years has been the implementation of the NSF-funded ADVANCE Program, which resulted in a 50 percent increase in female tenure-track STEM faculty in a four-year period after the program started in 2003. The program, which applied best practices identified in our initiatives to produce minority scientists, created a framework that includes revising and institutionalizing policies and practices, and allocating resources, in ways that support the recruitment, hiring, and advancement of women—particularly minority women—for the faculty at all ranks; engaging the campus broadly in ongoing discussions, informal and formal, that address issues of racial and gender diversity in STEM fields; and establishing a system of targeted mentoring programs designed to create a clear and understandable pathway for STEM women to achieve tenure and promotion, and to make the transition to academic leadership positions at the university.

Whether talking about improving the performance of students or increasing the number of women faculty, our approach has been the same. It involves starting with a small group, asking hard questions, learning as much as possible from working with that group, and building from there. By encouraging robust and honest conversations, gathering different points of view, and empowering people to think differently, even radically, we have been able to make progress and change the culture.

Another effective strategy has been setting aside money for small grants that can help in the development of new ideas. We’ve established an Innovation Fund using the grant attached to the Carnegie Corporation of New York’s Academic Leadership Award, which I recently received, and other funds we are raising. Faculty are developing proposals for a competition this fall focused on renovating and redesigning other courses across the curriculum.

Fifteen years ago, my greatest challenge going around the country was explaining what UMBC stood for and the value of our campus. I knew that we had strong faculty and were bringing in increasingly prepared students, but it was hard to make that point. In recent years, we have had an amazing amount of national visibility. For three years in a row, UMBC has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report as the no. 1 “Up and Coming” university in the country—a distinction that recognizes innovation—and U.S. News in 2011 also ranked UMBC 4th nationally for “Best Undergraduate Teaching,” in a tie with Yale. CBS News 60 Minutes focused attention on the Meyerhoff Scholars Program and innovation at UMBC in a segment that aired in late 2011, and Time magazine in 2012 called the Meyerhoff Program “perhaps the most envied science program in the country.”

Our efforts to reshape the curriculum and help our students succeed continue, with course redesign efforts progressing in the humanities, social sciences, and STEM disciplines. For example, we are placing strong emphasis on developing writing skills through an initiative that supports writing-intensive courses across disciplines. We continue thinking about the academic climate on campus, placing greater emphasis on students supporting students, peer tutoring, and living-learning communities in residence halls that bring students with similar interests together. We are emphasizing civic engagement at all levels, with members of our student government taking active roles in the American Commonwealth Partnership, a national effort to expand civic engagement at colleges and universities across the country. A UMBC initiative called BreakingGround will provide additional opportunities for student engagement by supporting faculty as they incorporate community service into courses and conduct research related to civic engagement at UMBC.

Our campus has both domestic and international diversity, with students from 150 countries studying and learning together. We have a great reputation in science, but also have very strong research programs in public policy and the human services areas, and considerable strengths in undergraduate arts and humanities from theater to ancient studies. With all of the awards and recognition, it’s become increasingly important to appreciate the value of humility—while remaining confident—in making sure the public understands that credit for this success extends across the campus community and reflects strong leadership within the University System of Maryland and from Maryland elected officials. We are using the positive visibility to build momentum, whether we are talking about raising funds, recruiting students, or attracting other talented faculty and staff, and we continue highlighting the stories that paint the picture of a young and vibrant university that has become a model of innovation for the nation.

Partnerships have played a critical role in many of UMBC’s most successful initiatives, from the launch of cyber incubators to the redesign of courses and the development of programs preparing students of all backgrounds for success in graduate studies and the workforce. Through our work with such organizations as the National Security Agency (NSA) and Northrop Grumman, we’ve identified key elements of the most successful partnerships.

Listen first: Successful partnerships are based on understanding each partner’s needs, challenges, and goals, and using the right resources at the right time to achieve mutually beneficial results. It helps to create an environment that encourages brainstorming about the possibilities.

Think in layers: Our best partnerships are those in which we have developed meaningful initiatives and relationships across the enterprise. Senior executives understand and support the partnership, while managers and researchers collaborate with faculty and staff on initiatives. In this model, no one person drives the outcomes, and success is not dependent on any one individual.

Build on success: Partnerships require trust. Starting with important but low-barrier-to-entry projects allows partners to build key relationships, demonstrate success, and build momentum. These elements are crucial in both planning and executing more rigorous projects.

Focus on execution: It is critical that partners set meaningful goals and identify the individuals from both sides who will be accountable for the effort. The project leads for our partnership with NSA host quarterly steering committee meetings to ensure that initiatives are moving forward, to troubleshoot slowdowns, and to capitalize on new opportunities.

Continually assess: Problems can and will arise in any relationship. The best partnerships grow when we can be honest about what is working and what requires more attention.

Blizzards in many states created piles of snow as background for trick-or-treat. Four feet of snow in Pennsylvania for Halloween—not exactly what was ordered. the next morning was my birthday: November 1, all Saints’ day (my family joke, “symbolic of the life she leads”). I loved all the moving birthday messages. thank you.

Convening Leaders in All Sectors, at Every Level

As we hurtle into the future, in this crucible of massive change, there is no time to negotiate with nostalgia for outmoded, irrelevant policies, practices, procedures, and assumptions. Our battle cry: “We must develop, today, leaders of change, leaders of the future.” That is why we gathered on october 16 for our Leader of the Future award dinner, convening the public, private, and social sectors—leaders at every level—to celebrate our seventh annual Leader of the Future Award Dinner. Our 2012 honorees gave us much on which to reflect:

Retired four-star general Peter Chiarelli, currently Ceo of one Mind for research, shared the reality of our times: 67 percent of U.S. soldiers in 2012 return home afflicted with post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries. General Chiarelli, who has close to forty years of service in the public sector, transitioned to the social sector to advocate for a cure for all brain disorders.

Charles H. Ramsey’s life in service began in 1973 when he became the youngest person of color to pass the sergeant’s exam in the Chicago Police department. After many told him that taking the test was a waste of his time, he successfully joined the department as an eighteen-year-old cadet. Now known as an internationally recognized practitioner and educator in his field as police commissioner of the Philadelphia Police department, Commissioner ramsey noted the most important contribution any of us can make: identifying new leaders and focusing on training and developing them.

Buddy Media’s Kass and Mike Lazerow—not only great leaders, but entrepreneurs, partners, and parents, showed us, by example, that a husband and wife start-up team can work well together, and that a great technology company can be built in New York on the foundation of humility, imperfection, and honesty. The Lazerows have successfully helped brands create value for their employees and investors while actively giving back to their community. their efforts with Buddy Media around “Cycle for Survival” have raised more than $4 million for the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

In addition to these remarkable veteran leaders, we honored an inaugural class of leaders ages thirty and under. Jessica o. Mathews and Julia C. Silverman cofounded Uncharted Play and developed a product called the SoCCKet: a soccer ball that doubles as an eco-friendly portable generator. With thirty minutes of play, the SoCCKet can produce three hours of light. It’s undeflatable and able to charge Led lamps, water purifiers, mini-fridges, and emergency cell phone chargers.

We honored Akosua Tyus, who fights for social justice and equality as one of the youngest branch presidents of the NAACP. Her administration’s strategic priorities include supporting minority-owned businesses, promoting health and wellness to combat obesity, educational advocacy and financial literacy programs, and securing Washington, D.C., voter rights. Finally, we honored Shaila Ittycheria and Kane Sarhan, cofounders of [e]nstitute, an alternative path of education based on real-life experiences that pairs young hopeful entrepreneurs with start-up CEOs and mentors.

All in attendance were inspired. My hope is that on reading the honorees’ amazing biographies, you are too.

Sharing Leadership Wisdom

The October 18 Global Webinar was an inspiring success. Months before the webinar, questions started coming in from all over the world. Five pages, singlespaced questions, all profound, all expressing a hunger for leadership help, resources, and inspiration. It was not only leaders from all over the world—thirty-eight countries total—registering early. a great american corporation sent out 88,000 messages to all retirees and all current employees encouraging them to sign on. You will find the replay of the event on our website.

One of the highlights of 2012 for me was being invited to tedxMidatlantic Be Fearless, hosted by the Case Foundation. Young, energetic people—all saving the world—gathered in Washington, d.C., on october 26–27 to share ideas. No podium or lectern, no handheld microphones. only a small, square red carpet, a clip-on mike, and a low stage, which I loved.

I decided not to be formal. I asked the audience if I could share with them the defining moment of my life that determined the person I am, the leader I have become. I asked the audience to think about a defining moment in their lives while I spoke. everyone has one. the audience’s response was very moving for me. afterward, I caught the 2:00 p.m. train back to New York City, bought batteries, locked the door of my forty-eighth floor apartment, and came out six days later, grateful for my good fortune – all power on and no flooding in my upper East Side neighborhood—and deeply concerned about all the suffering and devastation from the hurricane. as I write this, thanksgiving 2012 is approaching; and you will be reading this in late March 2013. during the months until March 2013, much will have happened, and much of it will be positive. (remember my blood type is B-positive.)

To serve is to live.

Frances Hesselbein is editor-in-chief of Leader to Leader, founding president of the Drucker Foundation, president and CEO of The Frances Hesselbein Leadership Institute, and former chief executive officer of the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A.