The Manhatten Project

Bennis looked at the Manhattan Project, the group that produced the first atomic bomb. This great group either started humanity on a path to its destruction or put an end to world wars. No matter what you believe, it is beyond dispute that the project was an incredible achievement, carried out in a shockingly brief period of time. A group of the world’s finest scientists, working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, took the idea of a bomb that would harness the power of nuclear fission from concept to delivery in just six years.

The Manhattan Project had its roots in a single letter sent from a group of Hungarian scientists to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt with the help of world-renowned physicist Albert Einstein. This letter outlines what they saw as a very real and very pressing problem confronting the U.S. and the world — that Hitler and Germany might develop a weapon based on nuclear fission. This letter led to the development of a small research team to begin a United States effort to build the bomb first, an initially fractured and ineffective process headed by the National Bureau of Standards and Col. James Marshall that finally began to gather steam when General Leslie Groves took over. Groves worked diligently to make sure that the manpower and leadership was in place to get the project completed before the Germans or Russians could.

One of General Groves’ first, and most important, acts was to appoint liberal scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer to take over the scientific research. Oppenheimer, whose views ran almost completely counter to those of General Groves, would, of course, become the man whose name is most often associated with the project. With the vision and leadership of Oppenheimer, who was a consistent champion of the project in both academic, military and political circles, the Corps of Engineers were able to bring on some of the most gifted scientists in the world, including Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller and even a young Richard Feynman.
It didn’t take much to educate the scientists, their families, the military men and the politicians involved in the Manhattan Project on why it was important. As Hitler marched across Europe and rumor spread that he wanted to develop a nuclear bomb, the need for the research was clear and its swift completion a priority to everyone involved. Nonetheless, both Groves and Oppenheimer inspired the scientists with their dogged determination and almost fanatical devotion to the project.
In some instances, as with the scientists who developed the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project , a handful of men and women and their leaders have opened up new technological territories, with outcomes that have reshaped the world.
Bennis concluded that every great group is extraordinary in its own way, but once again he was able to identify some common principles. They have a shared dream, for instance, and are ready to sacrifice personal egos in the pursuit of that dream. Their members are usually young, see themselves as winning underdogs and are prepared to put up with long hours and spartan conditions to achieve their dream. They do, however, need protection from the 'suits' who run the main organization and who see them as dangerous rebels, so one job of the leader is to provide that cover.
Great Groups – Common Characteristics

• Fueled by an invigorating, completely unrealistic view of what they can accomplish. They are irrationally optimistic and unrealistic
• Driven by Curiosity
• Care very little about the org chart or recognition
• People feel safe to fail
• Non conformist (ex. Members dress weird)
• Possess youthful qualities such as energy and the inclination to spend it on a project
• Mission focused
• Go against a “larger than life” enemy
• Work Murderous hours

Recruiting

• Recruiting is always the most important task of the Leader
• Quality vs. Quantity
– “You can’t pile together enough good people to make a great one” – (Bob Taylor, the leader of PARC)
• Lack of Experience is an asset, not a liability (Seymour Cray)
– Experience tends to make people more realistic, and that’s not necessarily a good thing
• Being a part of an Elite
– The selection process itself builds the group
– Being asked to join is an honor
• Hire your own “assassins”

Great Groups – Leaders

• The Leader Personality
– A pragmatic dreamer
– Shows Tirelessness, Certainty of the important of the task/project, Unwavering Focus
• Leaders
– Find ways to do whatever it takes to galvanize the group
– Command unusual respect
– Must allow the group’s members to discover their own greatness
– Can find the right person and put him/her in the right niche
– Must Create the ideal environment for the team/project
–
“There are two ways of being creative. One can sing and dance. Or one can create an environment in which singers and dancers can flourish” – UnknownDo not micro-manage
– Can say “no” or “do it differently”
– Deliver


As a long-term student of leadership, Bennis here emphasizes the importance of the group in achieving exceptional results when those results call for creativity and innovation. While there is still an important role for leadership, it is leadership that calls for a much more delicate touch than we are accustomed to seeing or valuing. In Bennis’s view, in fact, great leaders cannot arise absent a great group to lead.
Bennis highlights the following lessons about great groups:
Greatness starts with superb people
Great groups and great leaders create each other
Every great group has a strong leader
The leaders of great groups love talent and know where to find it
Great groups are full of talented people who can work together
Great groups think they are on a mission from God
Every great group is an island — but an island with a bridge to the mainland
Great groups see themselves as winning underdogs
Great groups always have an enemy
People in great groups have blinders on
Great groups are optimistic, not realistic
In great groups, the right person has the right job
The leaders of great groups give them what they need and free them from the rest
Great groups ship
Great work is its own reward
http://www.leadertoleader.org/knowledgecenter/journal.aspx?ArticleID=140

http://www.managementskills.co.uk/articles/ap98-bennis.htm
Interview with Warren Bennis

http://blog.leadertoleader.org/
Blog on Leadership

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/authors_corner/jan-june97/bennis_3-26.html
Author’s Corner - Bennis

A Computer with a Rebel Heart - Bennis

A product with a rebel heart is the product of great groups"

Here in lies the history of the personal computer. In 1945 coordinator for scientific research during WWII, Vannevar Bush set out his vision of a new technology for managing information, the Memorex. He wrote about a device in which people could store books, records and communications. He envisioned that this device would be mechanical and able to retrieve information fast. He saw it as a supplement to the human memory.

Nineteen years later, while writing his dissertation, Douglas C. Englebart came across Bush’s vision during his research. Inspire by the concept, Englebart accepted a grant from NASA setting out to make Bush’s vision a reality. With the funds from NASA Englebart was able to develop both the mouse and windows. While these new technologies impressed many, Englebart was unable to develop the first PC as NASA pulled funding from his project. Instead, a brach of the Xerox Corporation known as the Palto Alto Research Center, PARC, went on to develop the first user-friendly computer.

In 1970, Xerox hired Alan Kay, a computer wizard. Kay too had a vision to create an interactive computer that would be easy to use. Kay himself attributed much of the success of PARC to Bob Taylor. Taylor was the head of the Computer Science Laboratory. It was Taylor, while working at NASA, who had funded the work of Englebart which lead to the development of the mouse. Taylor believed strongly in the recruitment process. In Collins words, he made sure he got the right people on the bus. He said “You can’t pile together enough good people to make one great one.” Taylor looked for people who could work collaboratively. He believed that god science was done from the bottom up. You hired great people and turned them loose on projects they would excel in managing te system not the people. Under Taylor’s leadership, Kay developed a compuer language know as “Smalltalk”. The computer that was evolving at PARC was to be easy enough for a child to use. Kay envisioned what he called the Dynabook, a computer that would be small enough to carry in a saddlebag. When Xerox decided not to develop this idea PARC went on to complete its development of the Alto, the first successful personal PC. However, Xerox was never to sell the Alto commercially, instead a small company named Apple would.

Xerox decided not to follow through with the Alto. The executives lacked the same vision the PARC group had. Rather, they invited a young man named Steven Jobs to come in and see a demonstration of the Alto in return for a good price on Apple stock. What Jobs saw was an opportunity. He could not believe that Xerox was dropping the ball on this one. But, their loss was his gain. Jobs brought to Apple all that he had seen. Apple ran with PARC’s ideas scrapping their own concepts and focusing on finding the right people to complete the project. He brought on board people with unwavering focus and dedication who believed that they would “build a machine that would put a dent in the world.” Jobs had employees keep their project a secret believing that working under an heir of secrecy would bind the company closer together.
Although jobs had a great vision, he had a very immature leadership style. He would vigorously critique the work of his team on occasion telling them that their work sucked. He created a high level of stress within the group and slowed the pace at which people could be productive. In spite of the rash behavior of their leader, In 1984 the first Macintoshes were shipped. Unfortunately after acquiring success in their mission, the members of the MAC team developed a sort of depression. They had made so many personal sacrifices for the company and many people on the team left. Jobs too left the company selling off his stock, leaving with no money at all. Later, after growing up a bit, he became head of PIXAR and reclaimed his fortune once again.

Is it Time?

After 12 years in the classroom, a Master's in Educational Technology and 24 credits toward my Educational Leadership degree, this is where I'm at. Do I do it? Do I actively pursue the role I am in training for or do I remain in the classroom where it is safe and the terrain is familiar? We are all at a crossroads in our careers where we must decide which path to take. How can we go on to effectively create change in education? Where will we make the most difference! I think I know which way to go but the journey is uncertain. This realization is both frightening and exhilarating.