“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?” “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat. “I don’t much care where so long as I get SOMEWHERE –” said Alice. “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat.”  Lewis Carroll

My good friend and business partner once told me sarcastically, “All you want to talk about is scales and skills.  How boring!”  I responded, “What else is there that’s worth talking about?  They not only help us decide where we ought to go, but also how to get there.”

If you are a reader of this blog, you know I have scales for most everything I write about:  motivation, leadership, consciousness, relationships, education, interpersonal effectiveness, evolution, inclusivity etc.  You name it – I can come up with a scale for it. 

Why?  you might ask.  Because, as Carroll’s cat implies, if you don’t know where you are going, you may end up somewhere else.  And, I might add, if you don’t know where you are,  it doesn’t really matter what way you go – it’s just a matter of random luck if you end up someplace meaningful. 

One of my favorite scales is the leader to detractor scale developed by another dear friend, Barry Cohen:

5.0:  Leader

4.0:  Contributor

3.0:  Participant

2.0:  Observer

1.0:  Detractor

In my coaching practice, I often ask leaders to distribute their teams on this scale, i.e. how many are detractors, how many observers, etc.  Once leaders have an impartial and objective assessment of the level of functioning of their team, they can create a plan to elevate each person’s performance.  Since one size rarely fits all, the leader can design development strategies that are appropriate for members at each level.  People in special education know this principle well – each student needs an Individual Education Plan (IEP) that starts with a personalized goal and an accurate assessment of the person’s ability and motivation.  My wife, a masterful and magical special educator, applied this principle successfully for over 40 years of teaching. 

In the scale above, I assume that every person can be a leader in certain situations AND every person can sometimes be a detractor depending upon how distracted they are in a given moment.  The idea is to engage and inspire the team to be full participants, creative contributors, and ethical leaders as much of the time as possible.  When people are ready and willing to improve their performance (they know where they want to go), they need the knowledge and skills required to help them move up the scale (how to get there).

Let me use another scale to show the hierarchy of educational achievement:

5.0:  Personalized Objectives

4.0:  Skills

3.0:  Principles

2.0:  Concepts

1.0:  Facts

To be clear, I’m not denigrating facts and concepts here.  I’m simply pointing out the relative value of each educational outcome.  Again, if I don’t know where I’m going (personalized objective), I might end up somewhere else.  Facts add to our endlessly growing database of information.   Concepts help to “conceptualize” an issue and make for clever conversations, but don’t necessarily lend themselves to any meaningful outcome.  Principles give us a sense of direction and purpose:  If I do x, then y might happen, so that I get the desired result.  For example, if I respond accurately to your thoughts and feelings, then you are more likely to listen to me, so that we can build a stronger connection. 

I should note that a scale, in and of itself, is just a concept.  The scale merely enables you to assess where you are and determine where you want and need to be.  Once you have an accurate assessment of your current reality and your desired end-state, you not only can predict what will happen if no action is taken but also prescribe the required actions that will enable you to achieve your goal.  Acquiring and applying skills are usually essential for realizing your possibilities. 

A skill is a learned ability to achieve a desired result with acceptable execution within a given amount of time and energy.   In a constantly changing world, people not only need a broad range of skills, but also deep expertise in both hard and soft skills. 

Hard skills are typically technical and/or task related.  They may involve rigorous methods, processes, procedures and techniques that are required for certain professional or academic qualification or certification. 

Soft skills might include critical thinking, problem solving, and whole-person development. In the scientific community, hard skills are often given more weight than soft skills, but in my world, they are equally valuable AND may even require more work than hard skills. Labor skills include the set of knowledge and techniques that enable electricians, masons, carpenters, bakers etc. to become economically successful.  Life skills are acquired through sustained efforts to carry out complex activities involving ideas and people.

Success in any field depends on the quality and quantity of knowledge, skills and attitudes a person brings to a particular challenge or career.  So, why do I feel like people are more inclined to latch onto concepts than do the hard work of learning new skills?  To me, there are three reasons:

First, there may be a lack of motivation.  It takes a lot of effort to learn new skills whether they are hard skills, soft skills, labor skills, or life skills.  People need to have a compelling reason to do that work.  In the absence of a compelling “why,” any what will do.  Purpose needs to precede and then propel action. 

Second, there may be a lack of urgency.  Hey, if I’m making enough money and there is no immediate threat to my well-being, why would I turn off a football game on TV to read a new book.  Guilty as charged by the way.  Even though the world is rapidly changing and radically new skills will be required to navigate the future, urgency will remain stuck on “low” until there is an immediate wake up call.  And, no, you don’t need to be “woke” to wake up!  For many of my corporate clients, who are making more money than they ever dreamed would be possible, there is very little urgency to do things differently. 

Third, there may be a lack of support.  I have worked with many organizations who have spent gazillions of dollars on individual development programs when the organizational culture is not aligned with the goals of the development program.  People are asked to change in an environment that is designed to thwart the changes intended. 

So, yes, I’m a boring dude.  Skills and scales hardly ring the bells of leaders in business, academia, or social science.  Concepts are much more appealing. 

Fortunately, I have the privilege of working with many not-for-profit organizations who are highly motivated to change, have a sense of real urgency, and work very hard to develop new skills and to keep their cultures aligned with their objectives.  Even though they may not be moving up the artificial scale of financial success (which is becoming increasingly absurd), they see an urgent need to move up the scale of environmental success – working on long term solutions that will extend the life of the planet and the people on it.  The scale my not-for-profit friends seek to climb is:

5.0:  Interdependent

4.0:  Collaborative

3.0:  Independent

2.0:  Competitive

1.0:  Dependent

I have discussed this scale in other posts, so I will spare you here.  

I guess I’m like Lewis Carroll’s cat.  It doesn’t really matter which way you go if you don’t know where you want to get to.  In my mind, as boring as it may be, the two best tools to help us get from where we are to where we want to be are scales and skills.  AND, it may be a good idea to start with a hard look at which scale you are climbing.  Organizational support is also essential. 

Tragically, as I write this post, Israel is enduring the worst atrocities committed since the Holocaust.  Terrorists invaded its land and massacred its people.  Let me refer you to columns by Tom Friedman and Brett Stephens for a well-informed analysis of the situation.  For me, the looming question is which way ought we to go?  There is no easy answer, but it’s clear that there must be an objective analysis of how this happened, a deeply thoughtful consideration of the specific set of objectives to define the desired outcome of whatever response Israel decides to make, AND the application of a broad array of skills to prevent this evil from happening again – including hard skills, soft skills, military skills and life skills. 

To me, there are multiple “truths” here.  The overriding one, however, is that a terrorist organization hell-bent on destroying Israel has perpetrated some of the most horrific acts of evil ever witnessed on our planet.  The temptation will be to eliminate this evil by any means necessary.  While, in this case, I strongly support a full-scale military response, I’m hoping that the objectives will be clear and the responses will be multi-dimensional.  And I’m hoping that, over time, the other “truths” articulately expressed by Friedman and Stephens will be honestly addressed.

When I started writing this post, I had no idea that these principles would be applied to this horrifying scenario.  But, as it turns out, scales and skills can be relevant for any situation. 

I hope we can all find scales that will help us determine which way we ought to go and we can learn and apply the skills we need to help us get there.  May it be so for you, your organization, and for the chaotic world in which we live.