"Braveheart," A Leadership Guide

Remember this fighting scene from Braveheart? (via Oscarblogger)

Just Another Medieval War? NOT!

Just mention the word "Braveheart" and you'll probably hear "I love that movie!" Nearly 20 years after its original release in 1995, it remains an incredibly popular film with about $210 million worldwide gross, numerous awards including 5 Oscars, and a user popularity ranking of #83 out of 250 at IMDB.com.

"Braveheart" endures because the plot and the acting have meaning far beyond the actual time, place and conflict. On the surface it's "just another" medieval war, but the broader appeal has to do with the movie's messages about leadership, motivation, resilience, treachery, integrity and of course love. It's the leadership lessons that hold particular interest for me.

Quick Recap

Mel Gibson plays Sir William Wallace, who leads a guerrilla war against England's invasion in 1280. Early in the movie the conflict gets brutal and personal after English soldiers try to rape his wife and then execute her for fighting back. 

The tragedy turns him into an incredibly fierce and determined warrior, and although he died before full freedom could be secured, one victory he co-led was the Battle of Stirling Ridge in 1297.

As bad as the Scots had it, the fact that they followed him into battle -- facing an almost-certain death -- demonstrates that Wallace was not just a fighter but also a leader. Normally it would have been a slaughterhouse considering that (by one account):
  • Cavalry: 1,000-3,000 English soldiers, 300 Scots
  • Infantry: 15,000-50,000 English soldiers, 10,000 Scots
Yet Scotland does win and at least temporarily, has regained its independence. Though the English subdue them for a time, and Wallace is bestially executed in 1305, the country breaks free for good in 1314.

The movie taught me 5 important things about leadership.

1) Be Loyal To Your People

Despite what we learn from the textbooks, it's instinctive for leaders in the real world to focus on managing up rather than around. Wallace sees himself as one with the people and rejects a "peace" deal from the English king that would have left him disempowered and them demoralized and leaderless.
Princess Isabelle: He declares it to me, I swear it. He proposes that you withdraw your attack. In return he grants you title, estates, and this chest of gold which I am to pay to you personally.
Wallace: A lordship and titles. Gold. That I should become Judas?
Princess Isabelle: Peace is made in such ways.
Wallace: Slaves are made in such ways. (IMDB)
2) Trust Behavior, Not Words

The true leader knows very well the difference between what people say and what they actually mean to do. So the conversation above continues, with Wallace telling the emissary of the king, Princess Isabella, that he isn't taken in by flattering talk but will go by actual behavior - i.e. the execution of previous Scottish nobles under the very same guise of "peace."
"The last time Longshanks spoke of peace I was a boy. And many Scottish nobles, who would not be slaves, were lured by him under a flag of truce to a barn, where he had them hanged. I was very young, but I remember Longshanks' notion of peace."
3) Sell The "Compelling Obvious"

Just before the Battle of Stirling Bridge, Wallace could have made a lot of excuses for not communicating. For example:

  • "Now is not the time to talk but rather to sharpen our knives and swords,"
  • "Let's go over the battle strategy," or my favorite,
  • "They already know what the mission is."
But instead he rallies his soldiers with these famous words:
“They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom!”
There are actually two parts to this imperative.

  • One, a leader has a fundamental duty to tell people over and over again -- verbally, in writing, in body language, across every and any channel available -- what the mission is and why it is important. 
  • Two, the mission has to actually be compelling. It's hard to get any more relevant than this one: "Risk dying for freedom or live as slaves."
4) Wear The Warpaint

Wallace had a lot of things to cry about. But if he was going to win a war, or at least inspire people to ultimately win a war, he had to dress and act in ways that are symbolic of power and aggression. So instead of walking around with Kleenex he painted his face blue and white, got into gear, and rallied the troops.

Awhile back in 2008 the LA Times ran an article on then-candidate Barack Obama. It talked about his efforts to position himself as "ordinary" person despite his elite status. I remember thinking it was not such a good idea for himself to pursue a personal branding strategy of diminishment. Accessibility is fine, but the leader of the free world has to portray incredible power.

Credibility comes from substance but it also comes from image. When Wallace puts on the battle paint in "Braveheart" he sets a positive cycle in motion: demonstrating strength, causing others to see him as strong.

5) Embrace and Inspire The Naysayers

Often leaders shrink back from engaging with opponents when they should be doing precisely the opposite -- getting right in critics' faces, taking them down and then bringing them back again with inclusive, inspiring rhetoric.

This is exactly what Wallace does in the movie, responding directly to a soldier who gets scared and speaks up in front of the others -- he wants to go home. 
Young Soldier: Home! The English are too many!
William Wallace: ...Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM! - (IMDB.com)
I always enjoy a great movie like "Braveheart," especially when it teaches me the kind of stuff you can't get from a book and will absolutely need in the real world.

* All opinions are my own.


Crowdsourcing For Results: Why & How

Over the years I've learned that "normal" management is slow and full of bureaucratic drag. Crowdsourcing works much better, for four reasons:

  • Urgency: It has to get done. It works better if the pressure is real rather than invented.
  • Meaning: The people doing the work are emotionally invested in the result.
  • Empowerment: Members can take the lead on getting results because there is no time for mystifying, depressing and even demeaning bureaucratic red tape.
  • Temporary Nature of the Work: Knowing the project is time-limited means you can push yourself through the adrenaline rush to get it done, and then relax when it's over.
Trevor Owens, of the Library of Congress, recently wrote a paper on four essential elements of crowdsourcing for cultural heritage institutions and presented it to us at the National Archives. Some parts of the below reflect my own translation of his framework, but the concepts are essentially from Owens' paper:

  • Participant Motivation: Some leaders yell "fire, fire" continually and think that creates a sense of urgency for their employees. Instead, it just burns out their adrenal glands. Owens points out that motivation comes from a sense of purpose that goes beyond money. Think about why the project matters on a higher level and communicate that.
  • The Desire to Be Consulted: People don't want to live as drones; they are living accumulations of experience and knowledge and they want to participate in life as thinking human beings whose opinions matter. Crowdsourcing projects give them an opportunity to do just that.
  • Human Computation: You want to isolate the things that people can do as versus machines - e.g. their cognitive ability to process and make meaning out of information. An example would be tagging data; a machine does not possess the ability that people have to look at words in a nuanced and contextual way.
  • Tools as Scaffolding: If you want people to accomplish an important knowledge goal together quickly, it is critical that they have a usable technology base to hold them up. Many applications are confusing, slow, and generally cumbersome to the user when they could be elegant and speed the process along. The simpler the better.

Of course, crowdsourcing has many applications beyond management in a knowledge organization. Essentially it is a means of rebuilding capacity in a time when resources are scarce. However, by integrating this method into existing institutional settings we can become more fluid in its use and hopefully go far beyond -- alleviating social and economic problems that often seem so big as to be unfixable.

* All opinions my own.

Rebranding Open Data: The "Verified" Feed

The Good Housekeeping seal of approval (no endorsement expressed or implied)

The dream is open data. The nightmare is that open data has little or no credibility. Consider this:
  • The stated goal of government is to release as much data as possible to the public: "Government should be transparent...participatory...collaborative." - President Barack Obama, "Transparency and Open Government," Executive MemorandumJanuary 21, 2009
  • The data is supposed to be maximally accessable and usable for the citizenry. - "Government information shall be managed...to ensure that data are released to the public in ways that make the data easy to find, accessible, and usable."- President Barack Obama, "Making Open and Machine Readable, the New Default for Government Information," Executive OrderMay 9, 2013
Yet the polls tell us that people overwhelmingly do not trust their government. "Our Jan. 2013 survey found only 26% saying they can trust government always or most of the time, while 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or never." - Pew Research Center, July 23, 2013 (quote and screenshot)



In essence, government and its data has a credibility problem - a.k.a. a PR (public relations) crisis.

Any expert will tell you that in a PR crisis, trust is regained by doing a few fairly obvious things:
  • Admitting the problem;
  • Taking concrete steps to resolve it;
  • Bringing in a third-party expert to audit and review your actions.
In the case of government and open data, there are a few practicalities that get in the way of following classical PR advice:
  • We still have to get all releasable data sets released - e.g. it's early in the process;
  • Even if we had all available data, it's not yet available in one place such as Data.gov;
  • It is impractical to send in outside auditors to every agency to call attention to data inconsistencies and errors.
Yet there is one thing we can do right now to both increase the efficiency of open data collection and increase the credibility of this data with the public. That is the concept of the "verified" feed, marked with some seal akin to the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."

The basic idea is to release the dataset in the best shape one can, and then mark it as "Official Government Release" in such a way that it can always be traced to its official source as authentic (both externally and within the dataset code). Then, rather than spend government agency time and money building elaborate applications to display the data, make the feed available to the public in different venues - both on Data.gov and on any website where interested stakeholders congregate. 

Ideally, at least on Data.gov, the feed would be opened up in such a way that external reviewers could comment on it, similar to Wikipedia.

By:

  • Situating "verified" government data in one place,
  • Creating an open space for comments, corrections and edits, and
  • Linking back to it from places where interested parties congregate, so that they see it and are motivated to respond,
...the government data feed is de facto repositioned as "just another source of data to be critiqued."

If we were to do this, it is likely that public engagement and trust in the data would be increased, while unnecessary expenses on useless displays of open data would be reduced significantly.

* All opinions my own.


Search This Blog