The panel speaker for the February class was Walter Humann, a successful businessman as well as a leader in public service. Walt’s presentation on Regionalism + Leadership takes place inside a small dark theater of the MAC, the McKinney Avenue Contemporary. Walt begins the class with a brief review of current activities in the Jubilee Park neighborhood in southeast Dallas and some background information on his life experiences. He quotes a well known Robert Frost’s poem saying, “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference”. He then poses the question/challenge to the group of defining local vs. global influence.
Walt defines Regionalism as voluntary cooperation involving multiple government or non-profit organizations attacking major problems and improving local conditions for everyone involved. Then, the discussion takes a whimsical turn where Walt gives examples of local regionalism projects while the class responds with either 1, 2, or 3 points, thumbs up (jump ball), or thumbs down (air ball). 3 points would be a great example of regionalism while thumbs down would not be a good example at all. Examples include projects like the Dallas North Toll way, DFW airport, DART, local colleges/universities, and the local water quality. During this exploration Walt explains his connection to these efforts and how or why they are good or bad examples of regionalism.
Next, the discussion moves to leadership and the group is asked to offer up the one word that personifies a leader to them. The list that was offered up from the group is as follows: trust, listener, mentoring, accountability, integrity, motivational, personable, strength, inspirational, balanced, decisive, selfless, charismatic, humility, visionary, influential, open-minded, awareness, and bridging. Walt agreed that these are all great characteristics of a leader and provided his three categories of a leader as follows:
1. Those who are born with it.
2. One who emerges or rises up out of an event.
3. Those who have the potential and can be trained.
Walt defined a leader as someone who makes things happen, changes attitudes, and rights wrongs. This was followed by a brief discussion of John Adams as a born leader and rolled into the three main Army leadership qualities: Know, Do, and Be. Know = do your homework + knowledge, Do = actions, and Be = integrity.
Walt described himself as a leader falling in the second category by telling the story of a family friend disappearing in a plane, and the effort that they mounted to assist in coordinating the search efforts between several states. He adds to this that an additional boost to a solid leadership strategy is to stay strong in the face of adversity. To do this he suggests three more points: define the enemy, create a plan, and narrow down options. Walt says that his approach is to think of these three questions:
1. “always think of the enemy”
2. “if not you, then who”
3. “you can lose the battle, but not the war”
He wrapped up by telling the story of Sir Winston Churchill being saved by another boy from drowning, and his family setting up an anonymous education fund for the young man. Later in life this same man is found to be Dr. Flemming who created penicillin and suggested Churchill take it as an experimental drug to save his life yet again. Following the presentation and short break, Pete mentioned to us to remember who we saw today because although he was very humble and consequently much understated in his influence and impact on the community, he is a true American Statesman.
Pete begins his portion of the class by asking us to gather around the table and participate in a board game on Situational Leadership. The game required us to gauge how we would choose to respond to team based issues and challenges. Afterwards, we all started understanding that the action to take towards a problem is not a one size fits all. The game was effective in demonstrating that it is important for a leader to be able to understand more than just how they would choose to solve a problem, but they must also understand the people working under them… where they are in their development and what they need.
Pete then drew two diagrams. The first spoke to relational behavior vs task-oriented behaviors and relating responses. The diagram provided four different leadership styles (listed below) that people will trend towards depending on things such as experience and personality.
S-1: High Task oriented individual with a Low Relationship Behavior
S-2: High Task oriented individual with a High Relationship Behavior
S-3: Low Task oriented individual with a High Relationship Behavior
S-4: Low Task oriented individual with a Low Relationship Behavior
The second diagram illustrated the 4 stages a person goes through in their profession. See below.
D1 – Novice
D2 – Apprentice
D3 – Journeyman
D4 – Master
Pete explains the Leadership styles by relating to a typical business situation. A new intern would represent a “novice” in the architectural industry . They would fall directly into the category of S-1. The firm will focus a large amount of their time training him in the tools and the tasks of an architect and much less time in the relational areas of the business. The next step would to become licensed or begins to manage/direct his or her own projects. They are now at the apprentice stage and require an S-2 response. The firm he works for might begin to place him in front of clients and ask for his contributions on the marketing front to increase. The development is in full gear now. As he progresses in his career, he would fall into what could be termed as the Journeyman level of leadership. Seldom is input needed at this level, as he already has a sound foundation to work from. His understanding of the relational aspects of the business is to a point where the firm can trust him on his own, and he is constantly being exposed to that side of the business. Eventually he gets to a point of Master, or in the architectural community this is often referred to as Principal. His task-oriented duties have become very small, as he is spending all of his time being informed on the structure and the efficiency of the company.
Pete’s discussion led us all to a place of personal contemplation. At this point, we could take this information and see where we fit into our own firms. His last analogy was something that we could all relate to in one way or another. Fran, an up and coming individual at her firm, was trusted to manage a CAD/BIM transition at her office. Those S-4 individuals that steer her company saw some wonderful qualities that would suit her well in the new managing position. Unfortunately, the situation was overwhelming and the directors were unable to see the troubles that she was facing or offer her the necessary direction and feedback she needed in order to be successful. As future leaders, we need to understand that there is a developmental process that all people take, and we should be willing and able to facilitate that development in others just as much as we hope it is facilitated in us.
Ryan D. Martin, HKS
David Shively, PageSoutherlandPage
Michelle Northington, PageSoutherlandPage
