Leading in a do-oacracy ... afterthoughts

There's nothing like arriving in Las Vegas and Chris Nickerson roping you into a panel at BSides titled "Leading in a Do-ocracy". The panel was posted in the "I am the cavalry" track and the abstract of this panel looked like this:

What is a "do"-ocracy, and what does it take to lead one? While some people stand back and gawk at problems, others jump in to do something about what they see. Explore some common traits of do-ocracies, why they inspire others, and how leaders emerge. Learn from the successes and the failures of our panelists, and hopefully spark ideas within yourself that you can bring to a do-ocracy of your choosing or making.

Moderated by Tim Krabec, the panelists were Tod Beardsley, Beau Woods, Chris Nickerson, and myself. Nothing is better for a panel than an audience with an opinion and I can say I was happy that Keren Elazari decided to "give it to us" and become our fifth panelist. You can watch the panel here :







Now, being on a panel about leadership feels strange to me. I don't think I'm particularly knowledgeable on the subject and I don't see myself as a leader. Then again, we live in a world where everybody and their mom are keynote speakers on "leadership", "how to lead millenials to success", and other very interesting subjects. The funny part is that it is always very hard to track back any form of leadership experience in those peoples resume. Furthermore, most recently we have seen the advent of courses with super-awesome titles like "How to evolve from a middle manager to a middle leader". I kid you not, I wish I was though.



Let me be very clear, and this is my (very strong) personal conviction, some aspects of leadership can be adopted, maybe even faked, but leadership is not something that can be taught or learned.



Now, I do understand that some people might see me as a leader of some sort (Chris, I'm looking at you!) and I can't deny that I've been studying leadership in various forms since I was very young. I've also discussed the subject with people that, at some point in my life, were mentors to me. So here are the things I consider to be true about leadership.



Be the servant leader



Nothing makes a leader like quoting from some old book that most of the audience members have never read or, better, heard about. When it comes to servant leadership the Tao Te Ching gives a fairly good description :

The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware.
Next comes one whom they love and praise.
Next comes one whom they fear.
Next comes one whom they despise and defy. 

When you are lacking in faith,
Others will be unfaithful to you.
The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words. 

When his task is accomplished and things have been completed, All the people say, ‘We ourselves have achieved it!’

A leader rarely leads from the front. He's among the people doing the same work and at the disposal of the people, serving by the grace of the people. I guess what I'm trying to say is that leading in a do-ocracy is not about choosing the topics and gathering people around you to do them. It is about finding the topics that are important to the people and become part of the group, working in the trenches with them while not holding back on sharing knowledge, cycles, and sweat.



Understand your level



I've only recently become aware of the "5 levels of leadership" and it kinda hits home. Now, you have to understand that it takes all kinds of leaders to achieve success. A level 1 leader is not necessarily a bad leader, a level 5 leader might not be what you need in some circumstances. We, humans, like to think that we have to achieve the highest level and try to be who we are not to get there. For me, understanding your level of leadership is an important step of understanding where you can be most effective in helping to achieve goals. Here's those 5 levels:



1. Position - People follow because they have to.

2. Permission - People follow because they want to.

3. Production - People follow because of what you have done for the organization.

4. Person Development - People follow because of what you have done for them personally.

5. Pinnacle - People follow because of who you are and what you represent.



You can easily apply these levels to the people around you. You will quickly come to the conclusion that most people fall somewhere between level 2 and 4. You'll also realize that, as I said before, you know very few people that have evolved more than 1 level in their leadership abilities. That is what I mean when I say leadership can not be learned or taught.



Kaizen and continuous improvement



something, something, Six Sigma, black belt, Deming, Toyota.



I've read countless blogs and books on the Kaizen methodology. Moreover, I studied Kaizen before DevOps people started using Kanban boards to divorce yourself from responsible design and formal architecture. You can do that too and I'll not go into detail about what Kaizen means here.



I guess that the key take-away from Kaizen is that success is measured by the quality of your output. To me, it means these things:

• You can not do ALL THE THINGS. You might want to do them but you can't do all of them WELL. Pick the things wisely and apply maximum effort. There is only one speed : Go!
• Don't be a pussy and accept criticism. This is a big one! When you're doing stuff, people will come out of the woodworks and criticize you. It's cool and don't qualify them as detractors because they're saying something you don't like. All feedback is GOOD. Feedback shows that people care. Feedback allows you to steer where you are going (or not). The moment people stop giving feedback is not the moment where you're doing the right thing. It is probably the moment where you should consider abandoning your efforts because the people no longer care and you're merely doing this for yourself. 
• Focus on your outputs and ensure that they are of the highest quality possible. Quality is not measured in the number of retweets and likes, those are dumb metrics. Quality is measured in how people apply your outputs to do other awesome things. It is measured in how people appropriate your shit and make it even better or apply it to do something completely different.

I'm sorry that this has become such a long post. I hope it is helpful to some of you. We all have a limited time out here and we can't all make a dent in the universe. We can do our best to leave this world better than we entered it. The badges and accolades we can receive are nice, but they mean nothing when the worms are nibbling on our toes. 

Do right, do with empathy, and do selflessly, but most importantly DO! 

Or don't, but then please get out of my way.

Changes to the (ISC)2 Bylaws : Your vote is important

Note 1 : This post is only relevant if you are (looking to become) a member of (ISC)2 

Note 2 : As a member of (ISC)2 you might not care about voting on any matters related to (ISC)2. In this case, your vote is important. Even if you don’t care, do vote. This post exist to raise your awareness of such.

Note 3 : I was an (ISC)2 Board member from 2012 until 2014. I am currently not a Board member or in any way involved in the matters at hand. This post represents my personal view and not that of the (ISC)2 Board of Directors, any individual Director, or the organization.

On August 7th (ISC)2 management notified the membership of a special meeting that will be hosted at the (ISC)2 headquarters in Tampa, Florida. At this meeting there is currently one agenda point: 

“To approve of (ISC)² modifying the (ISC)² bylaws currently in effect since July 17, 2004 and replace them with the proposed amended and restated bylaws.” 

--VOTE HERE--> https://www.isc2.org/SpecialMeetingVote/  <--VOTE HERE--

As a member, I will vote in favor of these new bylaws and in this post, I shall explain why.

Bylaws, for any corporation, are basically the operational blueprint of the corporation. This means that they put into writing how the corporation is run, by whom, who bears which responsibility, etc. etc. They don’t change often and the (ISC)2 Bylaws have not changed since 2004. 

When I was Chairman of the Board in 2014, I specifically created a Bylaws committee that was tasked to review, and potentially amend, the (ISC)2 Bylaws. In that sense, the special meeting is a direct result of my actions back then.  I am actually happy to see that the Board has continued to work on this topic and is now proposing changes that are important for the membership. And those changes are GOOD!

For starters, the preamble to the Bylaws has changed significantly. While the strategic mission of the organization has moved from a product focus to a member focus back in 2012, this is now also reflected in the Bylaws. It is set in stone.

Many of the changes are cosmetic in nature or change wording to be current. I will not delve into those specifically. Then there are specific changes that relate to how the Board functions. One example is the following :

13. Action Without a Meeting/Written Consent. Directors may vote without a meeting if
(i) the vote being taken is in writing;
(ii) all Directors (100%) consent in writing; and
(iii) each Director’s consent is included the Board records. Consent may be given by
electronic means. Such consents shall be treated for all purposes as a vote at a meeting.
14. Telephonic Participation in Meetings. Other than during executive sessions, Directors
may participate in any meeting by means of a conference telephone call or similar
communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting
can hear each other at the same time. Participating by such means shall constitute
presence in person at such meetings.  

This greatly improves the efficiency of the Board. Where it gathers 4 times a year, decisions can not always wait for the next Board meeting to take place. These provisions make it possible for the Board to make decisions without an in-person meeting, allowing them to be more agile in their actions.

However, the most important change in this document is related to the Board Member term limits. When I joined the Board in 2012, one of the key elements that drove my platform was the membership’s objection to seeing the same people sitting on the Board all the time. Some Board Members have been, thanks to the flexible term limits in the 2004 bylaws, almost continuously on the Board since 14 years. The new bylaws will make this impossible, as they state :

Term Limits: “Service” means occupying any position as a Director of (ISC)². Service as a Director may not exceed six years in any ten year period; provided, that all Directors currently serving in office as of the effective date of these Bylaws may complete their duly elected or appointed term of Service. No one may serve as an appointed Director more than once, regardless of the duration of their appointment. An appointed Director may stand for election by the Members to a term subsequent to appointed service, subject to the term limitations stated herein 

Previously they stated the following :

Term Limits: No member may be elected to the Board more than twice in any seven year period.

Now you may ask why this is such a huge difference. My anwer here is two-fold :

• First and foremost, this forces the Board to be on the lookout for new blood all the time. Where under the original terms, a Director had to wait only 1 year after 2 consecutive terms to run for election again, the wait is longer now and searching for new, talented Directors is an important task to guarantee continuity. It also allows the Board to get new ideas on board. This is key for the organization and the membership.
• Secondly, however, it forces the Board into transparency. Under the original terms, there was always somebody there that knew (of) the history of the organization and the Board. Somebody that could clarify based on their personal knowledge. There was no immediate incentive to document or organize. With these new terms, the Board is obligated to maintain a formal history and to no longer rely on individual knowledge. It does not need to be argued that documentation leads to accountability, and that too was one of the key points that underpinned my platform to become a Board member back in 2012.

In that sense, this single meeting is the culmination of (more than) 3 years of effort to affect change. I can not discount the work that was done by Board members before I joined or the work that was done after I left. What is important is that we are finally there and you, as a member, can acknowledge this by voting “YES” for these important changes. 

I hope that you can find the time to confirm your vote and support the Board to continue their work for the membership.