Do it Your Way and Excel

Talent Equity Newsletter interview with RIAC Program Director Ivan Timofeev.

 

What is leadership?

Leadership is a lifestyle. At least two things differentiate the leader from others. The first is a vision of the future and understanding of what he wants from the future. The second is the will to achieve that future. Everyone makes plans for the future, but just a handful of people have the drive to achieve those goals. In any endeavor, there comes a moment when nothing seems to be going right. These moments can occur pretty often. The leader will not give up. He will keep going, through blood, sweat and tears, coming within an inch of failure, but he will not give up. Other people behave differently, unless, of course, they follow the example set by the leader. In a nutshell, a leader is a very obstinate person with original ideas. But this obstinacy combines with flexibility and a vision of the future that other people find attractive, which is why they follow him. A leader shapes the future even if it turns out to be somewhat different from what he originally wanted.

 

 

Could you say a few words about your work?

 

I work in a very delicate sphere of producing applied knowledge for Russian foreign policy, knowledge that in English is called usable or actionable. The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) is a unique organization functioning at the meeting point between of government, business and research. That’s what the modern world demands, since foreign policy is no longer confined solely to the realms of the state. Companies and corporations, universities, the media, NGOs: they are all involved in it directly or indirectly. We constantly have to combine things that seem incongruous, such as strict procedure with real breadth of thought, resolution with flexibility, unconventional solutions with their standard package. It’s difficult, but very interesting.

 

How do you see yourself as a leader, and what impact does this have on your work?

 

Well, on leadership: there are several aspects of it. First, I have a goal, or even a dream, to forestall emerging trends in knowledge production and application, or at least to put them to use. We got used to living in the logic of “catch up and surpass America in meat and milk production.” It's time to think differently. We have to do it our way and excel. How is a separate issue. Second, I have values. I am by nature a free man. Freedom for me is the ability to go beyond existing limits, although this requires responsibility. Bonded people will imitate the production of knowledge, rather than produce it. Third, I have a team of like-minded people who share my point of view, my purpose and values sometimes even more than I do. I believe that if I ever get the idea of throwing in the towel, they will not let me do it. But that’s a question of drive. The team’s drive and motivation is no less important than that of their leader.

 

Let's return to the phrase “catch up and surpass.” How can that be achieved?

 

It would be funny if I gave you the recipe straight away. Nobody would buy it, and rightly so. But I will say this: I believe that breakthroughs come at the intersection of different disciplines. People’s activity is largely confined to their own particular narrow fields of knowledge. They speak different languages. Unite them, experiment, and get a breakthrough. It is a Sunday school truth that everybody knows. It is much more difficult to organize a process, to convince people to change the rules of the game and the usual way of things. Finding the demand for new knowledge is an even more important task, and more difficult. I am not talking about “selling them a pup” but to find a genuine niche and occupy it. And if there is no niche, then you have to create it. That’s when many people lose heart. It is much easier to just scribble something down and then complain that nobody is interested in it.

 

Tell us about something new you’ve done on your own initiative?

 

In a way, I was lucky. I took part in RIAC’s foundation from the get go. There was no office, no funding, and not many people. But we started working: drafted projects and programs, developed plans, talked to people. And all this despite the fact that there were no guarantees that it would achieve anything. Anyway, I was involved in designing most of the Council programs, which, actually, today form my sphere of responsibility.

 

But this is not only my initiative. I am working under the guidance of two strong leaders – Igor Ivanov and Andrey Kortunov. What the Council has achieved is the result of our joint work. For me and my colleagues, this is an accomplishment in itself.

 

What's new about our work? Well, a number of things: new approach to engaging with the expert community; the active use of the Internet and social networks; establishing horizontal links in fundamentally different areas; harmonizing different positions and interests; taking a new approach to work with foreign partners. Again, these concepts are not, in themselves, new, but combining these initiatives into a running process requires a lot of effort. When it comes to organizing, just chat doesn’t cut it and we have to take a new approach.

 

RIAC leaders belong to different generations and that makes its leadership composition quite remarkable. Was this done on purpose?

 

I would say that that is just how it turned out. But it works. The Council boasts a very young staff. I am 33 years old, and many of my program colleagues are 23-27. But our enthusiasm has a very solid support. The President, the Director General, RIAC members are prominent and distinguished Russian politicians, businessmen, and scholars and we can to learn a lot from them. Here again, we are somewhat lucky. Many people spend money on courses at universities and business schools, while we have the opportunity to learn and get paid for it.

 

Can you give examples of what is new in your work?

 

First, we are open. In today's world, people with closed mindsets are likely to be less competitive. The problem boils down not to the volume of information, but to bringing it home to the target audience. But this openness has to be meaningful. Just putting everything on Facebook or a website makes no sense. We have to work thoroughly with our target groups, analyze them, and understand their needs.

 

Another point is that we seem to be managing to put this trend of interactivity and feedback to good use. Thanks to the Internet, expert appraisal becomes a fundamentally different process. The reader can contribute a lot to the expert’s work. If the expert can direct consumers’ energy to addressing his goals, the results of his work become much more competitive.

 

We also changed the format of the final product. The text should be extremely concise and concrete. I am not a fan of the standard formats that exist. “Lengthy” texts are good for the academic community and, of course, should not be abandoned completely. But they have a different target audience. If you want to be relevant to decision-makers, business, and the media, you have to write in a concrete and very concise manner. Discipline here is the crucial factor. Every figure, every idea, must be verified. Every word should fit the paragraph precisely. Of course, this is an ideal that is impossible to attain 100%, but striving for it makes a whole lot of difference. You cannot just write that in 10 years there will be a war between countries A and B. Explain why you think so, who the winners and losers will be. And do it in a very concise and convincing manner.

 

You bring this idea home to everyone? Including respected experts?

 

This approach often faces resistance. On the one hand, people want to share their ideas, but they are often reluctant to take the trouble to review, edit and polish the text, to ensure the phrases they use really pack a punch. It's hard work, and it is more difficult to write an impactful text than an academic article, a chapter in a monograph, etc.

 

Of course, we sometimes encounter difficulties with experts, but I would not say that these difficulties arise with everyone. We find a common language with those people who want to work with us. As for the others, they are free to write however they like. But for our purposes, for our target audience, the articles should meet the standards we set.

 

I mentioned “flexibility” for a reason. We consider the experts’ opinion very carefully. An expert can sometimes point out that the problem is phrased incorrectly. I offer this expert the opportunity to sit down and rephrase the question. Then we discuss it and if we agree, the expert will go ahead. If there is no answer, we, most likely, will decline the material. I have already mentioned the value of freedom for me. But one can never be free if your ideas are unordered, and there are no rules to get things moving.

 

But I interrupted you. Are there other examples?

 

Yes, perhaps. We transform our analysis into intensive educational products.

 

Interestingly, RIAC does not rival any existing educational or scientific organization. We are not competing with the Academy of Sciences, universities, etc. We have our own niche that allows us to establish partnerships with all these structures. We promptly take the fundamental knowledge produced by the universities and add competencies targeted on a specific task.

 

For example, we were tasked with preparing a group of young experts for the APEC summit. It took us a week to train them up with general knowledge that would allow them to participate in discussions at a decent level. Another example is the “A+standard” program for business. It takes us two days, following the analysis of the company’s electronic resources, to offer recommendations and turn them into competences. Just two days. Businessmen are busy people and they cannot afford more than two days on our program. We put a lot of time into its development, and then very quickly, within a day or two, hand the prepared competencies over.

 

How does the leader develop people? There are a lot of young people in your team. What about their development?

 

I do not believe people develop by being given instructions like you do this, and you do that. This is all a thing of the past. I try to create conditions in which people can develop on their own initiative, and figure out themselves what really interests them. Only then they will work effectively. It is important to support colleagues in search of something new. For example, we have a group of editors, who have been working on the portal for two years. How can they progress? Our organization is not hierarchical, and we can not put up another pip or something else to award them for “long service.” There appeared an idea that, once they are specialists, let them figure out how to share their skills with other people. When you give somebody the task of sharing his knowledge, you begin to grow yourself very quickly, and they get additional motivation and an extra spark in their eyes. That’s how the “A+standard", which we offer to businesses and universities, started out. It is important not to get in the way of people. You can spark real interest in anybody, provided that you identify what motivates them and find a way of fitting it into the general structure.

 

And how do you develop your higher-ups?

 

This is a difficult question. I have never set that as a goal. But I’ll tell you this: I grew up in very unstable times. I grew up when everything was collapsing, when rules were very flexible. It was capitalism in its wildest form. I earned my first money when I was a small boy by washing cars, filling up trucks, etc. I probably understand things very differently than my superiors. Their socialization took place in a rigidly regulated society with a relatively clear hierarchical structure. My socialization took place amid chaos when horizontal networks were paramount. I believe that we complement each other pretty well. I don’t need to develop those who are more experienced than me. It’s enough to maintain an effective division of labor they deal with their issues, and I deal with mine.