Are you treating your job as a prison sentence? Think again....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQr3UOHBGaw
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Ten Strategies To Never Get Promoted
Why would you want to sabotage your own career - to be relegated to the ranks of the "constantly overlooked" or to become the cause of poor office morale? Well, it's not like people set out to do it on purpose but that doesn't mean they don't still find creative and unconscious ways to ensure that they never get a promotion or, Heaven forbid, a management position.
There are hundreds of ways to never get a promotion but in the list below are ten of the top suggestions if you're really searching for creative ways to ensure that you live a life of quiet (or not so quiet) desperation. Laid out here are ten surefire ways to make sure you are overlooked for promotion, recognition, alienation on the job and to become the brunt of jokes by your co-workers.
I know you're waiting impatiently to find out how you too can professionally shoot yourself in the foot, so here we go.
1. Never offer a compliment - You want to make sure that you are never heard uttering a compliment to any of your co-workers or bosses because offering a compliment would simply show the bosses within earshot of just how much better your co-worker is at the job than you.
2. Never smile - When you smile, you give the impression that you are having fun and enjoying your work or, worse yet, that you are a happy person. You certainly don't want to offer any indication that you are anything but moody, self-absorbed, angry and despising your work.
3. Shoot down co-worker ideas at staff meetings - Look, if you let one staff member's idea gain ground, people might like the idea and thank your co-worker for making the suggestion. At which point you will be confronted in having to offer a compliment - see strategy #1 for clarification.
4. Always bring the conversation back to you - If a co-worker leans on you for advice, do not offer any but instead offer up a far more gut-wrenching story of how much more hard-done-by you actually are. Their problems will seem minor in comparison to yours.
5. Treat your co-workers as though they're idiots - you already know that you have a superior intellect so make sure that your co-workers know that you're so much brighter. Otherwise, they will never admit it to themselves and never get any smarter. Make sure you voice your opinion on the promotion of someone who is clearly dumber than you.
6. Laugh at co-workers who do self-improvement - point out their flaws and illustrate how the things they are improving about themselves really aren't worth the effort anyway. Make sure you point out more things that they really need to work on. Besides, learning really is only for losers.
7. Always be right - win every argument. You must ensure that no matter what the discussion, no matter how well-versed you are in the subject, no matter how many people may be against you, always win by arguing your co-workers into submission until they give up and walk away. Never back down. And if you're wrong, raise your voice and make stuff up to baffle your opponent.
8. Be petty - make sure that you argue about every little thing. Also, make sure whatever is being argued is meaningless and the effort spent to argue the point is a complete waste of everyone's time. You will have achieved success when your co-worker either screams, throws their hands in disgust or swears at you. Until you witness one of these three, do not let go of the petty argument.
9. Blackmail your co-workers - if your co-workers are not willing to see your point of view, offer to blackmail them by threatening to spread rumours about them. People love to be talked about and people love to talk about other co-workers. See, there really is a use for office-gossip.
10. Pretend you're an expert in things you know nothing about - Tell your co-workers how to do their jobs even if you've never done the work. I mean, how hard can it be anyway? This gets its best results when you are new to the organization, are meddling in other departments in which you have zero experience or you read a Blog post once from some nobody which has apparently made you a vicarious expert.
And there you have it - the top ten ways to commit corporate hari-kari. And it's easier than it looks. After all, who wouldn't want to be working under a recently promoted, know-it-all, morally superior, self-absorbed, intellectually-deluded jerk who is not in command of his or her Emotional Intelligence? And what boss wouldn't want to promote someone who treats others with contempt to a position of power?
Attitude Adjustment: Contempt for others is not a workplace attitude. It's a emotional problem that needs addressing by professionals before it creates toxicity and volatility in the workplace. Contempt reaches far beyond just the ranks of the workers - it touches customers, clients and eventually communities. Contempt can not be contained. Therefore, it needs to be dealt with severely.
If you want to create a decent workplace, hire decent people, promote decent people to supervisory positions and, most important of all, create an anger-management program in your workplace or get rid of the toxic elements altogether. And NO NOT offer a good reference for people like this. That's just moving the problem on to someone else.
Leadership is an Attitude. Management is a position of responsibility. If you have employees that need help or guidance, get it for them. Not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it sends a message to your people that certain behaviours are not tolerated. It also says that you have compassion and that you will look after your people if they are prepared to look after themselves.
--
There are hundreds of ways to never get a promotion but in the list below are ten of the top suggestions if you're really searching for creative ways to ensure that you live a life of quiet (or not so quiet) desperation. Laid out here are ten surefire ways to make sure you are overlooked for promotion, recognition, alienation on the job and to become the brunt of jokes by your co-workers.
I know you're waiting impatiently to find out how you too can professionally shoot yourself in the foot, so here we go.
1. Never offer a compliment - You want to make sure that you are never heard uttering a compliment to any of your co-workers or bosses because offering a compliment would simply show the bosses within earshot of just how much better your co-worker is at the job than you.
2. Never smile - When you smile, you give the impression that you are having fun and enjoying your work or, worse yet, that you are a happy person. You certainly don't want to offer any indication that you are anything but moody, self-absorbed, angry and despising your work.
3. Shoot down co-worker ideas at staff meetings - Look, if you let one staff member's idea gain ground, people might like the idea and thank your co-worker for making the suggestion. At which point you will be confronted in having to offer a compliment - see strategy #1 for clarification.
4. Always bring the conversation back to you - If a co-worker leans on you for advice, do not offer any but instead offer up a far more gut-wrenching story of how much more hard-done-by you actually are. Their problems will seem minor in comparison to yours.
5. Treat your co-workers as though they're idiots - you already know that you have a superior intellect so make sure that your co-workers know that you're so much brighter. Otherwise, they will never admit it to themselves and never get any smarter. Make sure you voice your opinion on the promotion of someone who is clearly dumber than you.
6. Laugh at co-workers who do self-improvement - point out their flaws and illustrate how the things they are improving about themselves really aren't worth the effort anyway. Make sure you point out more things that they really need to work on. Besides, learning really is only for losers.
7. Always be right - win every argument. You must ensure that no matter what the discussion, no matter how well-versed you are in the subject, no matter how many people may be against you, always win by arguing your co-workers into submission until they give up and walk away. Never back down. And if you're wrong, raise your voice and make stuff up to baffle your opponent.
8. Be petty - make sure that you argue about every little thing. Also, make sure whatever is being argued is meaningless and the effort spent to argue the point is a complete waste of everyone's time. You will have achieved success when your co-worker either screams, throws their hands in disgust or swears at you. Until you witness one of these three, do not let go of the petty argument.
9. Blackmail your co-workers - if your co-workers are not willing to see your point of view, offer to blackmail them by threatening to spread rumours about them. People love to be talked about and people love to talk about other co-workers. See, there really is a use for office-gossip.
10. Pretend you're an expert in things you know nothing about - Tell your co-workers how to do their jobs even if you've never done the work. I mean, how hard can it be anyway? This gets its best results when you are new to the organization, are meddling in other departments in which you have zero experience or you read a Blog post once from some nobody which has apparently made you a vicarious expert.
And there you have it - the top ten ways to commit corporate hari-kari. And it's easier than it looks. After all, who wouldn't want to be working under a recently promoted, know-it-all, morally superior, self-absorbed, intellectually-deluded jerk who is not in command of his or her Emotional Intelligence? And what boss wouldn't want to promote someone who treats others with contempt to a position of power?
Attitude Adjustment: Contempt for others is not a workplace attitude. It's a emotional problem that needs addressing by professionals before it creates toxicity and volatility in the workplace. Contempt reaches far beyond just the ranks of the workers - it touches customers, clients and eventually communities. Contempt can not be contained. Therefore, it needs to be dealt with severely.
If you want to create a decent workplace, hire decent people, promote decent people to supervisory positions and, most important of all, create an anger-management program in your workplace or get rid of the toxic elements altogether. And NO NOT offer a good reference for people like this. That's just moving the problem on to someone else.
Leadership is an Attitude. Management is a position of responsibility. If you have employees that need help or guidance, get it for them. Not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it sends a message to your people that certain behaviours are not tolerated. It also says that you have compassion and that you will look after your people if they are prepared to look after themselves.
--
Monday, July 27, 2009
Resentment In The Workplace
Most people don't realize that resentment comes from being victimized. In fact, remorse, regret and resentment are all feelings of the victim. Before you can feel resentment, you have to have been victimized by a situation or circumstance. You must have given up your power to someone or something else before you can feel hard done by that someone or something else. My friend Bobby Ng taught me that years ago.
Accountability, on the other hand, is free of resentment, remorse and regret. Through accountability, you agree that somehow along the way, you attracted this situation or circumstance. And perhaps this situation can teach you something. That is, without a doubt, the most difficult personal notion for people to wrap their heads around. But once they do it, it's freeing.
Some say that resentment is more difficult to overcome than substance abuse. I think that is accurate. You can walk away from alcohol, cigarettes or drugs and once they are out of your system, you can begin your new life. However, resentment can stay with a person for a lifetime. Some people just never get over being hard done by. They use that feeling to garner attention - not necessarily positive attention. They are filled with concern about how they look to others more so than how they feel to themselves. Resentment comes from a poor self-image. Until a person's need to be happy outweighs their need to be right, nothing will ever change.
Is there resentment in the workplace? You bet there is. But organization after organization believe that they have no need for soft-skills training. They think it's too fluffy. So they allow many of their people to harbor feelings of resentment and represent the company in this way. People who harbor feelings of regret, remorse or resentment become the victims in the business world. They come back to the office claiming that their own prices are too high or the customer isn't buying or it's the economy. Victims have a pile of excuses for why they're not doing well. But still, there's no need for soft-skills training.
You need to change your attitude on soft-skills training.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: Any good leader will know that you build your organizations from the inside out. Build up your people on the inside, allow them to do the work within the organization, and build your organization stronger from the inside out. It takes more than just time management or communication skills training to improve an organization. The more you fix your people, the more you enable your people to fix the problems on their own. Business gets better when the people in the business get better.
Accountability, on the other hand, is free of resentment, remorse and regret. Through accountability, you agree that somehow along the way, you attracted this situation or circumstance. And perhaps this situation can teach you something. That is, without a doubt, the most difficult personal notion for people to wrap their heads around. But once they do it, it's freeing.
Some say that resentment is more difficult to overcome than substance abuse. I think that is accurate. You can walk away from alcohol, cigarettes or drugs and once they are out of your system, you can begin your new life. However, resentment can stay with a person for a lifetime. Some people just never get over being hard done by. They use that feeling to garner attention - not necessarily positive attention. They are filled with concern about how they look to others more so than how they feel to themselves. Resentment comes from a poor self-image. Until a person's need to be happy outweighs their need to be right, nothing will ever change.
Is there resentment in the workplace? You bet there is. But organization after organization believe that they have no need for soft-skills training. They think it's too fluffy. So they allow many of their people to harbor feelings of resentment and represent the company in this way. People who harbor feelings of regret, remorse or resentment become the victims in the business world. They come back to the office claiming that their own prices are too high or the customer isn't buying or it's the economy. Victims have a pile of excuses for why they're not doing well. But still, there's no need for soft-skills training.
You need to change your attitude on soft-skills training.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: Any good leader will know that you build your organizations from the inside out. Build up your people on the inside, allow them to do the work within the organization, and build your organization stronger from the inside out. It takes more than just time management or communication skills training to improve an organization. The more you fix your people, the more you enable your people to fix the problems on their own. Business gets better when the people in the business get better.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Can't Tell Good Without Bad
In order for you to claim to be "better" you have had to experience something worse. Without the comparison point, the exercise is futile.
But unfortunately, the vast majority of organizations who claim to have better service have never really put themselves in the customer's shoes. They have never really actually experienced their own service. The vast majority of companies have never really taken the time to individually assess the service model of their competitors. They think, in their mind, that they know the service model their competitors are using but they really don't. So they believe that a few minor tweaks and adjustments on their own service will allow them to claim "better service."
Recently, I had a face-to-face heated discussion with a hardware store manager. After being under-serviced by many of his staff I took my complaint directly to his office. He jumped out from behind his desk and began running all over the store as though he was my trained servant. This is not what I wanted. I simply wanted to be served well by the people who stand in the aisles of the hardware store and whose job it is to serve people.
When I arrived at the front checkout counter, I was asked by the cashier, "did you find everything you were looking for?"
I did not find everything I was looking for. I was looking for service. But by the time I get to the front counter, it's too late to address that issue.
I'm sure that in the manager's mind his own store service was adequate. But from my perspective, the service was mediocre. It was ordinary. It was average. Maybe even below-average.
Attitude Adjustment: If you, as a manager, have to jump out from behind your desk and run all over the store to serve the customer that your customer service people should have already served, then you have a service problem. And this doesn't just apply to retail locations. If the customers are asking for a manager or supervisor, then your customer service reps are not doing it right. If your clients are asking for a manager to intervene in sales, you're not doing it right.
You are creating a "bad service" experience for your customers. These are exactly the kinds of stories your customers take to your competitors. In fact, your competitors will probably build a customer service model based on that experience and claim that their service is "better." And they would be right.
But unfortunately, the vast majority of organizations who claim to have better service have never really put themselves in the customer's shoes. They have never really actually experienced their own service. The vast majority of companies have never really taken the time to individually assess the service model of their competitors. They think, in their mind, that they know the service model their competitors are using but they really don't. So they believe that a few minor tweaks and adjustments on their own service will allow them to claim "better service."
Recently, I had a face-to-face heated discussion with a hardware store manager. After being under-serviced by many of his staff I took my complaint directly to his office. He jumped out from behind his desk and began running all over the store as though he was my trained servant. This is not what I wanted. I simply wanted to be served well by the people who stand in the aisles of the hardware store and whose job it is to serve people.
When I arrived at the front checkout counter, I was asked by the cashier, "did you find everything you were looking for?"
I did not find everything I was looking for. I was looking for service. But by the time I get to the front counter, it's too late to address that issue.
I'm sure that in the manager's mind his own store service was adequate. But from my perspective, the service was mediocre. It was ordinary. It was average. Maybe even below-average.
Attitude Adjustment: If you, as a manager, have to jump out from behind your desk and run all over the store to serve the customer that your customer service people should have already served, then you have a service problem. And this doesn't just apply to retail locations. If the customers are asking for a manager or supervisor, then your customer service reps are not doing it right. If your clients are asking for a manager to intervene in sales, you're not doing it right.
You are creating a "bad service" experience for your customers. These are exactly the kinds of stories your customers take to your competitors. In fact, your competitors will probably build a customer service model based on that experience and claim that their service is "better." And they would be right.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
What Is Extraordinary Service?
What is extraordinary service? First of all, extraordinary is two words: extra and ordinary. Your company may claim to offer extraordinary service but in most experiences extraordinary service is simply ordinary service times two.
Tom Peters, management consultant, recently said that customer service is like hygiene for business: in the same way that you would expect to brush your teeth, you serve customers. It's just something that's come to be expected. He went on to say that the point of service is to not just be better than the worst, but to in fact be far better than anything that currently exists. But how do you measure "better?" In order for you to claim to be better you have had to experience something worse. Without the comparison point, the exercise is futile.
So, back to extraordinary service. Service everywhere is ordinary. All service is based on the same ordinary service model, some with sheer moments of brilliance and some with incredibly disappointing results. There is no extraordinary service. Why? Because there are no extraordinary service trainers. Everyone's service models are based on everyone else's service models with a few tweaks and adjustments. That is what makes extra-ordinary service twice as ordinary.
Seth Godin, author of the book The Purple Cow, uses the word "remarkable" when he speaks of service. His definition of the word remarkable is offering something so out of the ordinary, that people are willing to remark on it.
I mean, how simple it would it really be to stop saying, "thank you and have a nice day" when you know that clerk behind the counter really doesn't mean it when he or she says it anyway. They have been told by management that that's how they must speak to the customer. Instead, why not say, "thank you and enjoy your sandwich." Or, "thank you, I hope we see you again tomorrow."
Why is it so hard to make the service experience personal? I mean, all you have to do is to look in the bag of what you're handing the customer and remark on what they purchased. Yes you're right, that means no more going about the job mindlessly. You have to be present in order to offer this sort of service. You actually have to have your mind on your work and be engaged with the customer in order to offer this type of service.
There are websites, books, seminars, white papers, videos and webinars offering suggestions in helping employees engage better on the job. When really, all that needs to be done is to encourage employees to be present in their work. That means, giving them work that means something. And the employee has to mean something before the work can mean something. That means training employees in the art of soft-skills before they are trained in customer service skills. But that's a whole other discussion.
Attitude Adjustment: In training people in the art of customer service, the service model has got to be able to be understood by every single person -- from genius to moron. You can't break your staff training sessions into two groups: those who are intelligent and those who are idiots. Your customer service model has got to be able to be carried out by all employees regardless of their intelligence. So, the service model gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator so that everyone is capable of grasping the basic concepts.
The reason customer service will never change is because the customer doesn't change. Customers will always need to buy things. Customers have accepted that this is how they buy things. Customers have accepted that service is ordinary. Customers are still willing to part with their money even though the service is merely ordinary. So, until the demand for service increases, the service itself will not increase. It will still be extraordinary. Sorry, I mean extra-ordinary (ordinary with a side-order of more ordinary).
That is, of course, unless you're willing to do something outrageous with your service.
Tom Peters, management consultant, recently said that customer service is like hygiene for business: in the same way that you would expect to brush your teeth, you serve customers. It's just something that's come to be expected. He went on to say that the point of service is to not just be better than the worst, but to in fact be far better than anything that currently exists. But how do you measure "better?" In order for you to claim to be better you have had to experience something worse. Without the comparison point, the exercise is futile.
So, back to extraordinary service. Service everywhere is ordinary. All service is based on the same ordinary service model, some with sheer moments of brilliance and some with incredibly disappointing results. There is no extraordinary service. Why? Because there are no extraordinary service trainers. Everyone's service models are based on everyone else's service models with a few tweaks and adjustments. That is what makes extra-ordinary service twice as ordinary.
Seth Godin, author of the book The Purple Cow, uses the word "remarkable" when he speaks of service. His definition of the word remarkable is offering something so out of the ordinary, that people are willing to remark on it.
I mean, how simple it would it really be to stop saying, "thank you and have a nice day" when you know that clerk behind the counter really doesn't mean it when he or she says it anyway. They have been told by management that that's how they must speak to the customer. Instead, why not say, "thank you and enjoy your sandwich." Or, "thank you, I hope we see you again tomorrow."
Why is it so hard to make the service experience personal? I mean, all you have to do is to look in the bag of what you're handing the customer and remark on what they purchased. Yes you're right, that means no more going about the job mindlessly. You have to be present in order to offer this sort of service. You actually have to have your mind on your work and be engaged with the customer in order to offer this type of service.
There are websites, books, seminars, white papers, videos and webinars offering suggestions in helping employees engage better on the job. When really, all that needs to be done is to encourage employees to be present in their work. That means, giving them work that means something. And the employee has to mean something before the work can mean something. That means training employees in the art of soft-skills before they are trained in customer service skills. But that's a whole other discussion.
Attitude Adjustment: In training people in the art of customer service, the service model has got to be able to be understood by every single person -- from genius to moron. You can't break your staff training sessions into two groups: those who are intelligent and those who are idiots. Your customer service model has got to be able to be carried out by all employees regardless of their intelligence. So, the service model gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator so that everyone is capable of grasping the basic concepts.
The reason customer service will never change is because the customer doesn't change. Customers will always need to buy things. Customers have accepted that this is how they buy things. Customers have accepted that service is ordinary. Customers are still willing to part with their money even though the service is merely ordinary. So, until the demand for service increases, the service itself will not increase. It will still be extraordinary. Sorry, I mean extra-ordinary (ordinary with a side-order of more ordinary).
That is, of course, unless you're willing to do something outrageous with your service.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Everything Needs To Be Broken
Here is the one Attitude that I believe is necessary in any top-performing senior team: assuming that everything within the organization is broken. Nothing within any organization should be "hands-off." No aspect of any organization should be taboo. If one thing is untouchable, then everything is untouchable.
No senior management position can be untouchable. No mid-level management position can be untouchable. No entry level position can be untouchable. Every aspect, every employee, every process, every interaction and every idea must be allowed to face the chopping block. If you don't run your business in this way, you are not maximizing your organization's power.
Attitude Adjustment: Everything is broken. And if some things are not broken, they should be allowed to be broken. The more senior executives approach the board room table with the belief that every aspect of the business can be improved, only then will true creative discussion occur.
Every aspect of the business needs to be up for discussion, and that includes the senior executives who run the place.
As Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon once said, "A brilliant idea and a dumb idea sound exactly the same to a mediocre mind." Anyone attempting to maintain the status-quo within an organization will find that their senior team is no longer top-performing, but instead, simply mediocre.
Now, how many things at work are you prepared to break today?
-- --
No senior management position can be untouchable. No mid-level management position can be untouchable. No entry level position can be untouchable. Every aspect, every employee, every process, every interaction and every idea must be allowed to face the chopping block. If you don't run your business in this way, you are not maximizing your organization's power.
Attitude Adjustment: Everything is broken. And if some things are not broken, they should be allowed to be broken. The more senior executives approach the board room table with the belief that every aspect of the business can be improved, only then will true creative discussion occur.
Every aspect of the business needs to be up for discussion, and that includes the senior executives who run the place.
As Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon once said, "A brilliant idea and a dumb idea sound exactly the same to a mediocre mind." Anyone attempting to maintain the status-quo within an organization will find that their senior team is no longer top-performing, but instead, simply mediocre.
Now, how many things at work are you prepared to break today?
-- --
Are You Going To Measure That Too?
It is unfortunate that the corporate consultants have convinced you that if it moves, it needs to be measured. The measurement metrics are getting out of hand. They have even been given a fancy name: competency frameworks.
While I agree that it is important to measure some things within an organization, there are others that don’t. Do cultural competencies need to be measured? Cultural competencies are the behaviours that reinforce the organization's values. In other words, people are measured to ensure that every action, word and deed is in alignment with the corporate values that the employee may or may not agree with. They may be good workers but may not agree with the direction of the organization. So why not just address it face-to-face instead of measuring it, pouring over the information, and then addressing it?
Then there are the leadership competencies and management competencies. Technically they are close to being one in the same. Since leadership has become just another fancy word for management (although I think they are vastly different but how do you measure an attitude?), it really is considered to be the same thing. But management consultants are supposedly different than leadership consultants. Therefore, they each have their own list of competencies. Is this duplication?
Look, competency frameworks are supposed to measure competency. But if a manager scores low in competency, why is he still a manager? If a leader scores low in competency, why is she still a leader? If the strategic competency scores low how are you still in business? If the cultural competency scores low, maybe it's the culture of having all of these damn metrics that are bothering people.
How deep the measurement goes is completely dependent upon the organization. A consultant might say, "You know, I’ve been pouring over the data and I really believe that if we change the Columbian blend of coffee to a Kona blend, we could realize a 2.7% increase in productivity within the first three minutes after coffee break."
Perhaps that might be useful information - perhaps not. When you start measuring, you open yourself to all sorts of outside influences you have no control over. That 2.7% increase in productivity may be erased by the extra three minutes in the bathroom because of the big bowl of Señor Juan's killer chili the night before. (Sorry, I know, bad visual.)
Shouldn't the health of an organization be first and foremost dependent on the satisfaction of its customers? Shouldn't you be more concerned about generating revenue streams than you are about what you do with the money when you get it? Granted, what you do with the money is important. But it doesn't make any difference what you do with it if you aren’t making any – because you’re spending it on measuring how much money you don’t have.
If you want to check the pulse of your organization and find out if it's healthy, check in with your customers. Let your customers measure how well your organization is doing. Let your customers tell you what can be done to improve. Let your customers tell you how to fix your service. Let your customers suggest the necessary changes. What you really should be measuring are the results of your customer service.
Really, are you so starved for a pat on the back that you are willing to celebrate a 2.7% increase in productivity within the first three minutes after coffee break because you changed the brand of coffee? Let's get on with what you’re here to do: serve your customers. Remember, it's about them, not about you. If you’re placing too much stock in metrics then you’re not having the conversations with the people who keep you working. Client conversations and relationships trump internal spreadsheets and data every time.
While I agree that it is important to measure some things within an organization, there are others that don’t. Do cultural competencies need to be measured? Cultural competencies are the behaviours that reinforce the organization's values. In other words, people are measured to ensure that every action, word and deed is in alignment with the corporate values that the employee may or may not agree with. They may be good workers but may not agree with the direction of the organization. So why not just address it face-to-face instead of measuring it, pouring over the information, and then addressing it?
Then there are the leadership competencies and management competencies. Technically they are close to being one in the same. Since leadership has become just another fancy word for management (although I think they are vastly different but how do you measure an attitude?), it really is considered to be the same thing. But management consultants are supposedly different than leadership consultants. Therefore, they each have their own list of competencies. Is this duplication?
Look, competency frameworks are supposed to measure competency. But if a manager scores low in competency, why is he still a manager? If a leader scores low in competency, why is she still a leader? If the strategic competency scores low how are you still in business? If the cultural competency scores low, maybe it's the culture of having all of these damn metrics that are bothering people.
How deep the measurement goes is completely dependent upon the organization. A consultant might say, "You know, I’ve been pouring over the data and I really believe that if we change the Columbian blend of coffee to a Kona blend, we could realize a 2.7% increase in productivity within the first three minutes after coffee break."
Perhaps that might be useful information - perhaps not. When you start measuring, you open yourself to all sorts of outside influences you have no control over. That 2.7% increase in productivity may be erased by the extra three minutes in the bathroom because of the big bowl of Señor Juan's killer chili the night before. (Sorry, I know, bad visual.)
Shouldn't the health of an organization be first and foremost dependent on the satisfaction of its customers? Shouldn't you be more concerned about generating revenue streams than you are about what you do with the money when you get it? Granted, what you do with the money is important. But it doesn't make any difference what you do with it if you aren’t making any – because you’re spending it on measuring how much money you don’t have.
If you want to check the pulse of your organization and find out if it's healthy, check in with your customers. Let your customers measure how well your organization is doing. Let your customers tell you what can be done to improve. Let your customers tell you how to fix your service. Let your customers suggest the necessary changes. What you really should be measuring are the results of your customer service.
Really, are you so starved for a pat on the back that you are willing to celebrate a 2.7% increase in productivity within the first three minutes after coffee break because you changed the brand of coffee? Let's get on with what you’re here to do: serve your customers. Remember, it's about them, not about you. If you’re placing too much stock in metrics then you’re not having the conversations with the people who keep you working. Client conversations and relationships trump internal spreadsheets and data every time.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Why Teamwork Is Not For Everyone
Is teamwork a bad idea? It can be if the 20 - 60 - 20 rule applies in organizations, companies and teams. What the 20 - 60 - 20 rule applies to are the percentages comprising most workplaces. The top 20% of employees will be go-getters and high performers. The bottom 20% will be low performers and slow-getters. The remaining 60% in the middle will be the mediocre and average performers.
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip says, "To mediocre minds, a brilliant idea and a dumb idea sound exactly the same. Every team will vote out the best ideas and the worst."
Forcing a high performer to work with a low performer simply for the optics of teamwork may be counterproductive. For the sake of workplace harmony, well-meaning but ill-informed managers trot out the "we're going to work in teams" philosophy because he or she once read an article touting the benefits of teamwork. But that same manager did not bother to explore other options and opinions.
Forcing your high performers to sit as equals on a team with slow performers is the most expedient way to irritate a high performer. As well, the low performers become increasingly frustrated by how quickly the team is attempting to move forward even though the "slow-getter" isn't up to speed yet. That one person feels rushed on this team. Meanwhile, the collective average in the middle simply sits by and watches as both the high performers and low performers battle for power on the team.
Unfortunately, the most influential people on the team and the most powerful are not necessarily the high performers. Because teams are all-inclusive, a team will not move forward without all of its members. Therefore the person who holds the team hostage becomes the most powerful person in the team. That is usually the person who doesn't get it the most.
Before you go thinking that teamwork is the answer and spend large sums of money on team-building exercises, maybe you should consider whether your place of business needs teams at all. Perhaps more would get done by leaving your people alone to do what they already excel at. Forcing people to join teams simply for the sake of inclusion is a bad idea.
-- --
Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip says, "To mediocre minds, a brilliant idea and a dumb idea sound exactly the same. Every team will vote out the best ideas and the worst."
Forcing a high performer to work with a low performer simply for the optics of teamwork may be counterproductive. For the sake of workplace harmony, well-meaning but ill-informed managers trot out the "we're going to work in teams" philosophy because he or she once read an article touting the benefits of teamwork. But that same manager did not bother to explore other options and opinions.
Forcing your high performers to sit as equals on a team with slow performers is the most expedient way to irritate a high performer. As well, the low performers become increasingly frustrated by how quickly the team is attempting to move forward even though the "slow-getter" isn't up to speed yet. That one person feels rushed on this team. Meanwhile, the collective average in the middle simply sits by and watches as both the high performers and low performers battle for power on the team.
Unfortunately, the most influential people on the team and the most powerful are not necessarily the high performers. Because teams are all-inclusive, a team will not move forward without all of its members. Therefore the person who holds the team hostage becomes the most powerful person in the team. That is usually the person who doesn't get it the most.
Before you go thinking that teamwork is the answer and spend large sums of money on team-building exercises, maybe you should consider whether your place of business needs teams at all. Perhaps more would get done by leaving your people alone to do what they already excel at. Forcing people to join teams simply for the sake of inclusion is a bad idea.
-- --
Monday, July 20, 2009
To Boldly Go
The "leading" part of leadership is most important right now. Not false leadership (I am a manager therefore I am a leader) but the real fundamental philosophy behind the word "leader:" to do what no one else has done.
Leadership is about going where others are not, doing what others are not, thinking what others are not. Corporate America has become a hum-drum exercise in mediocrity: everybody doing pretty much what everybody else is doing. No one seems to be taking risks. No one (with a few exceptions) seems to be doing anything to stand out and be different. And yet everyone claims to be offering better service, a better product, a better price. But it’s really all just the same.
During this economic downturn, senior execs were so busy slashing budgets and expenses that they had no time to concentrate on how they could deliver better, innovate better, create better and be better. Why? Because they were cutting the very budgets that would have allowed that. They were cutting because everyone else was cutting.
If you're cutting, you're not creating. If you're cutting, you're not generating new ideas. If you're cutting, you're managing not leading. If you’re cutting because everyone else is cutting, then you’re following, not leading.
The leadership Attitude most required right now is to step out and be noticed and allow your people to step out and be noticed. It will fuel the barrage of ideas that follow. We, as an economy, need that Leadership Attitude right now. And we need to do it differently.
Leadership is about going where others are not, doing what others are not, thinking what others are not. Corporate America has become a hum-drum exercise in mediocrity: everybody doing pretty much what everybody else is doing. No one seems to be taking risks. No one (with a few exceptions) seems to be doing anything to stand out and be different. And yet everyone claims to be offering better service, a better product, a better price. But it’s really all just the same.
During this economic downturn, senior execs were so busy slashing budgets and expenses that they had no time to concentrate on how they could deliver better, innovate better, create better and be better. Why? Because they were cutting the very budgets that would have allowed that. They were cutting because everyone else was cutting.
If you're cutting, you're not creating. If you're cutting, you're not generating new ideas. If you're cutting, you're managing not leading. If you’re cutting because everyone else is cutting, then you’re following, not leading.
The leadership Attitude most required right now is to step out and be noticed and allow your people to step out and be noticed. It will fuel the barrage of ideas that follow. We, as an economy, need that Leadership Attitude right now. And we need to do it differently.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Going Outside Of The Box
If you want a few parts of your organization to stay "in the box" because parts of the organization are working well, then you don't want any "outside of the box" ideas. You can't do both. You can't play two golf-courses at the same time and you can't be both in and out of the box at the same time. Not possible.
Maybe you're looking for a few new ideas for your organization. That's OK. But don't call it out-of-the-box thinking just because you've never done it before. Out-of-the-box (OOTB) is doing what NO ONE ELSE is doing. In order for you to be able to do that, you would have to give up everything you know about how your business runs right now.
The biggest barrier to OOTB is getting your people, who have been living inside the box, to even remotely comprehend what OOTB looks like. Any great idea that would revolutionize how you do things would be met with skepticism and resistance by people inside the box. They just won't get it.
If your people think it's a good idea, then it's probably just a SAFE idea. If it's a really brilliant and creative idea, your people will resist it because most people fear change and because they're inside the box. Your people will desperately try to fit the new idea around their old perceptions. It doesn't fit because you would have to ask your people to give up everything they know about how your business works in order for them to conceive a new way of doing business. And that's risky to them.
So again, are you looking for a few new ideas that can make the organization better or are you looking for a revolutionary new way of doing business? One is ideas and one is out-of-the-box.
Attitude Adjustment: The best way to think outside of the box is to never get in the box in the first place. Because once you're there, and you've hired your people to work inside the box and you've trained your customers to buy from you inside the box and your processes are designed to work inside the box, then you will have to change the world before you can change your organization.
Maybe you're looking for a few new ideas for your organization. That's OK. But don't call it out-of-the-box thinking just because you've never done it before. Out-of-the-box (OOTB) is doing what NO ONE ELSE is doing. In order for you to be able to do that, you would have to give up everything you know about how your business runs right now.
The biggest barrier to OOTB is getting your people, who have been living inside the box, to even remotely comprehend what OOTB looks like. Any great idea that would revolutionize how you do things would be met with skepticism and resistance by people inside the box. They just won't get it.
If your people think it's a good idea, then it's probably just a SAFE idea. If it's a really brilliant and creative idea, your people will resist it because most people fear change and because they're inside the box. Your people will desperately try to fit the new idea around their old perceptions. It doesn't fit because you would have to ask your people to give up everything they know about how your business works in order for them to conceive a new way of doing business. And that's risky to them.
So again, are you looking for a few new ideas that can make the organization better or are you looking for a revolutionary new way of doing business? One is ideas and one is out-of-the-box.
Attitude Adjustment: The best way to think outside of the box is to never get in the box in the first place. Because once you're there, and you've hired your people to work inside the box and you've trained your customers to buy from you inside the box and your processes are designed to work inside the box, then you will have to change the world before you can change your organization.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Greatness Is A Soft-Skill
You know, for being such a dominating force in the world of business, Corporate America really doesn’t have a clue about the stuff that REALLY makes business successful - you know, the people part of it?
If you think communication and presentation, management, human resources, sales and marketing, project and time management, customer service, administration, accounting and finance and purchasing are soft-skills, then you really don’t have any idea of why you are not the best in your market do you? Imagine telling the Human Resources director that they have no real technical expertise because HR is a soft-skill. Imagine telling the VP of Customer Service that her entire department is an unnecessary soft-skill. The same goes for accounting, finance and purchasing.
There are some training companies that would have you believe that sales, finance and management are soft-skills.
If it’s a skill you need to perform your job, it’s a technical or a performance skill. If it’s something that makes you a better person, it’s a soft-skill. It's that clear. There is no gray area here.
Let me illustrate: two job candidates sit in your office with exactly the same technical skill-set. Who do you choose? You choose the candidate with the better soft-skills (friendliness, confidence, optimism, etc.).
It’s exactly the same way your customers choose to do business with a particular sales person, or why some companies offer better service, or why some companies have better management. Given that the product is equal, the choice comes down to which personality you would prefer to work with. Your choice is based on a soft-skill.
If you want to improve the corporate culture of your organization, you can not do it without addressing attitudes and soft-skills.
The Attitudes and soft-skills of your organization are the difference between mediocrity and greatness. Oh, and by the way, greatness is a soft-skill.
If you think communication and presentation, management, human resources, sales and marketing, project and time management, customer service, administration, accounting and finance and purchasing are soft-skills, then you really don’t have any idea of why you are not the best in your market do you? Imagine telling the Human Resources director that they have no real technical expertise because HR is a soft-skill. Imagine telling the VP of Customer Service that her entire department is an unnecessary soft-skill. The same goes for accounting, finance and purchasing.
There are some training companies that would have you believe that sales, finance and management are soft-skills.
If it’s a skill you need to perform your job, it’s a technical or a performance skill. If it’s something that makes you a better person, it’s a soft-skill. It's that clear. There is no gray area here.
Let me illustrate: two job candidates sit in your office with exactly the same technical skill-set. Who do you choose? You choose the candidate with the better soft-skills (friendliness, confidence, optimism, etc.).
It’s exactly the same way your customers choose to do business with a particular sales person, or why some companies offer better service, or why some companies have better management. Given that the product is equal, the choice comes down to which personality you would prefer to work with. Your choice is based on a soft-skill.
If you want to improve the corporate culture of your organization, you can not do it without addressing attitudes and soft-skills.
The Attitudes and soft-skills of your organization are the difference between mediocrity and greatness. Oh, and by the way, greatness is a soft-skill.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Attitude Of Unfairness
There is a new Legislation being argued in the US Senate these days that would make it easier for unions to form. It’s called the Employee Free Choice Act and it is creating quite a bit of concern throughout Corporate America. And Corporate America should be concerned – but not by the threat of a union. Corporate America should be concerned with the perceptual attitude of its employees that they might even consider the notion of needing a union.
People join unions because they feel that management is treating them unfairly. Examples of patronage, promoting friends, firings without cause and poor management skills leave the employees with an Attitude of mistrust. So what are the options? The biggest option is to join or form a union. The Employee Free Choice Act being discussed in US Senate right now would make it very easy for your workplace to be unionized quickly. And all that is required is simply a feeling, a suspicion or attitude of not being treated well.
If feelings of unfairness are rampant in your organization then you are a prime target for unionization under the proposed US Legislation. But that's not to say that unionizing is bad. In fact, there are still some Neanderthal managers in the workforce today who do short-change their employees, who still belittle and intimidate their workers and who do treat them unfairly. And for those organizations, being kicked in the ass by a union is probably the right thing. If there are managers on your payroll who still operate this way, get rid of them before the legislation goes through.
There doesn’t even need to be anything wrong in your organization - no evidence is required. All there needs to be is a “feeling” of being taken advantage of – an Attitude of “Us versus Them.” There doesn’t need to be evidence of unfairness – just the perception of it. Do you see the difference?
It’s not the union that managers should be afraid of. It’s the belief that a union might be necessary at all – that’s what should scare managers. If your people “feel” that they are being mistreated or taken advantage of then your organization has a Sick-Attitude that you had better address right now. The longer you wait and hope it goes away, the more likely it is to affect employee productivity, corporate relations with customers and, in turn, profitability. When morale is low, so are profits. If profits are low, where are you going to find money for union wages?
If your people are even contemplating organizing, you have an Attitude problem you need to address right now. Your place needs an Attitude Adjustment. If you don’t address it, you will pay … one way or the other.
--
People join unions because they feel that management is treating them unfairly. Examples of patronage, promoting friends, firings without cause and poor management skills leave the employees with an Attitude of mistrust. So what are the options? The biggest option is to join or form a union. The Employee Free Choice Act being discussed in US Senate right now would make it very easy for your workplace to be unionized quickly. And all that is required is simply a feeling, a suspicion or attitude of not being treated well.
If feelings of unfairness are rampant in your organization then you are a prime target for unionization under the proposed US Legislation. But that's not to say that unionizing is bad. In fact, there are still some Neanderthal managers in the workforce today who do short-change their employees, who still belittle and intimidate their workers and who do treat them unfairly. And for those organizations, being kicked in the ass by a union is probably the right thing. If there are managers on your payroll who still operate this way, get rid of them before the legislation goes through.
There doesn’t even need to be anything wrong in your organization - no evidence is required. All there needs to be is a “feeling” of being taken advantage of – an Attitude of “Us versus Them.” There doesn’t need to be evidence of unfairness – just the perception of it. Do you see the difference?
It’s not the union that managers should be afraid of. It’s the belief that a union might be necessary at all – that’s what should scare managers. If your people “feel” that they are being mistreated or taken advantage of then your organization has a Sick-Attitude that you had better address right now. The longer you wait and hope it goes away, the more likely it is to affect employee productivity, corporate relations with customers and, in turn, profitability. When morale is low, so are profits. If profits are low, where are you going to find money for union wages?
If your people are even contemplating organizing, you have an Attitude problem you need to address right now. Your place needs an Attitude Adjustment. If you don’t address it, you will pay … one way or the other.
--
Customer Service Is NOT Rocket Science
Question: How do you measure the success of a corporate culture shift from doing business by transactional model to customer service based?
Anyone who says that the success is measured by money is still using the "transactional" method, which means your Customer-service based approach has failed. Money is a lousy way of keeping score.
So how do you measure? Ask your customers. If they're happy and continuing to do business with you then it's working. Let's not make this whole approach to customer service so difficult that you have to re-write the book on changing a culture.
Whatever happened to people serving people? It is NOT more difficult than that so stop making it difficult. Here's how simple it really is. Be human. Wear a smile. Say thank you. Price fairly. Offer good quality. Make it easy. Keep your word. Be honest. Tell the truth. (Only 2 of these have anything to do with the product.)
If that's not your current model then you're doing it all wrong. And it would be my pleasure to help change your attitude on it.
Anyone who says that the success is measured by money is still using the "transactional" method, which means your Customer-service based approach has failed. Money is a lousy way of keeping score.
So how do you measure? Ask your customers. If they're happy and continuing to do business with you then it's working. Let's not make this whole approach to customer service so difficult that you have to re-write the book on changing a culture.
Whatever happened to people serving people? It is NOT more difficult than that so stop making it difficult. Here's how simple it really is. Be human. Wear a smile. Say thank you. Price fairly. Offer good quality. Make it easy. Keep your word. Be honest. Tell the truth. (Only 2 of these have anything to do with the product.)
If that's not your current model then you're doing it all wrong. And it would be my pleasure to help change your attitude on it.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Culture Shift
Organizational culture is an idea in the field of Organizational studies and management which describes the psychology, attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values (personal and cultural values) of an organization. It has been defined as "the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization. (Wikipedia)
For a long time, I've been a huge proponent of culture being created in any organization from the bottom-up. Ultimately, culture is determined by the people doing the real work every day. I've never been big on the culture being defined by a bunch of guys in suits who don't mingle much with the people who actually do the work. Only executives defining the corporate culture is laughable. They can have input on targets but don't expect the employees to embrace the new culture if the employees themselves haven't had a say in how it goes.
Look, the truth is, it's the masses (the worker bees) that make the culture anyway not the small amount of top level execs, so tap the front-line for culture shifting ideas. There will be a better "buy-in" to any new culture-shifting program if it comes from the people that culture affects the most. In fact, with so many Gen Y's coming on-board, every organization had better re-think their culture and get input from the people who will make up a large portion of the workforce shortly.
I was working with a client recently who was having some difficulty in past with their "safety" culture. Their solution was to institute an "Accountability Committee" made up of front-line workers who were able to challenge anyone in the company - right on up to the CEO - to make sure they had followed through with their commitments to safety improvement. If anyone didn't, the Accountability Committee would encourage the laggards to get with it before the quarterly report card was filed. The Accountability Committee is like an internal police force that, when you think about it, should be following everyone around all day to make sure we all do what we say we're going to do. It would sure keep a lot of empty promises from being made.
An idea like this could work, with a little tweaking, to really make a difference in culture.
Oh, and one last thing, when you're trying to measure what culture your organization has now, find out what kind of a reputation your company has outside of the company walls. Do informal interviews with real people outside of the company, real customers, real suppliers and people who were turned down for jobs to get their take on what you do and how you do it. That should open your eyes quite a bit to what's happening behind the walls.
For a long time, I've been a huge proponent of culture being created in any organization from the bottom-up. Ultimately, culture is determined by the people doing the real work every day. I've never been big on the culture being defined by a bunch of guys in suits who don't mingle much with the people who actually do the work. Only executives defining the corporate culture is laughable. They can have input on targets but don't expect the employees to embrace the new culture if the employees themselves haven't had a say in how it goes.
Look, the truth is, it's the masses (the worker bees) that make the culture anyway not the small amount of top level execs, so tap the front-line for culture shifting ideas. There will be a better "buy-in" to any new culture-shifting program if it comes from the people that culture affects the most. In fact, with so many Gen Y's coming on-board, every organization had better re-think their culture and get input from the people who will make up a large portion of the workforce shortly.
I was working with a client recently who was having some difficulty in past with their "safety" culture. Their solution was to institute an "Accountability Committee" made up of front-line workers who were able to challenge anyone in the company - right on up to the CEO - to make sure they had followed through with their commitments to safety improvement. If anyone didn't, the Accountability Committee would encourage the laggards to get with it before the quarterly report card was filed. The Accountability Committee is like an internal police force that, when you think about it, should be following everyone around all day to make sure we all do what we say we're going to do. It would sure keep a lot of empty promises from being made.
An idea like this could work, with a little tweaking, to really make a difference in culture.
Oh, and one last thing, when you're trying to measure what culture your organization has now, find out what kind of a reputation your company has outside of the company walls. Do informal interviews with real people outside of the company, real customers, real suppliers and people who were turned down for jobs to get their take on what you do and how you do it. That should open your eyes quite a bit to what's happening behind the walls.
Why Leadership Courses Don't Work
Question: What is the difference between a natural leader and a trained leader and who would you want on your team?
Answer: I'm not sure why so many people think that somehow leadership is exclusive to business. It is not. A parent is as much a leader as a CEO - and in most instances, I would bet a better one. Leadership is not the result of attaining a title or taking a class or reading a book. That's simply a "management" course falsely re-branded. You don't train leaders. No one can be taught to become a real leader in a few-day course. They can be more effective, sure. Maybe more communicative, more accommodating, more decisive but that just a tiny sliver of what comprises a leader. To become a real leader would require a life-long commitment to continually improving and self-examining with nothing being off-limits.
There are no "irrefutable laws" to leadership either because leadership is not tangible. It's not something you can hold in your hand and it's not something that you become by blindly following someone else's 21 laws. Leaders know that everything can be questioned. Nothing is irrefutable including the leader themselves.
Sometimes managers have leadership abilities but it is NOT a prerequisite for the job. Leadership is an attitude. Management is a position. The office whiner can be a stronger leader than his supervisor if more people follow the whiner. Would you want that kind of strong natural leader on your team? Osama Bin Laden is a natural leader. Would you want him on your team? David Koresh possessed all natural leadership abilities. Would you have wanted him on your team?
Leadership isn't just positive. Sometimes leadership can be destructive (think about the first person to loot during a riot). That's leadership too.
Is it leaders you want on your team or good, honest, decent, hard-working, accountable people who are willing to take direction and get the job done more than they are about taking the credit? If your team of 12 was made up of 12 leaders, would anything get done? Each "leader" would expect to lead and expect that others would do what they say. They'd end up never coming to consensus about how to proceed. Think about that for a moment.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: We all need to stop throwing around the word "leader" like our organizations are full of them. Corporate America is so devoid of leadership that we've become self-anointing - take a course and be called a leader. People who have never led others can open up leadership courses and schools and call themselves experts and charge you money to teach you re-branded management courses. There's no certification to become a "leadership expert." So how can anyone claim to make you a leader? They can't. That's not leadership and it's an insult to real leaders to be lumped in with leadership imposters who claim they are leaders just because they finished a course.
Leadership is not exclusive to business and has really nothing to do with business. It's a fancy buzzword that we throw around when we really, for the most part, couldn't sum up leadership in a few sentences anyway.
That's why there are 350,000 books on Leadership on Amazon. There are that many varying opinions on it. That's why Leadership courses don't work. No one person has it completely right. If you're following only one person's interpretation of what Leadership is, you're missing the big picture and frankly, you're not much of a leader because you're following someone else's ideas. Leaders lead remember.
Answer: I'm not sure why so many people think that somehow leadership is exclusive to business. It is not. A parent is as much a leader as a CEO - and in most instances, I would bet a better one. Leadership is not the result of attaining a title or taking a class or reading a book. That's simply a "management" course falsely re-branded. You don't train leaders. No one can be taught to become a real leader in a few-day course. They can be more effective, sure. Maybe more communicative, more accommodating, more decisive but that just a tiny sliver of what comprises a leader. To become a real leader would require a life-long commitment to continually improving and self-examining with nothing being off-limits.
There are no "irrefutable laws" to leadership either because leadership is not tangible. It's not something you can hold in your hand and it's not something that you become by blindly following someone else's 21 laws. Leaders know that everything can be questioned. Nothing is irrefutable including the leader themselves.
Sometimes managers have leadership abilities but it is NOT a prerequisite for the job. Leadership is an attitude. Management is a position. The office whiner can be a stronger leader than his supervisor if more people follow the whiner. Would you want that kind of strong natural leader on your team? Osama Bin Laden is a natural leader. Would you want him on your team? David Koresh possessed all natural leadership abilities. Would you have wanted him on your team?
Leadership isn't just positive. Sometimes leadership can be destructive (think about the first person to loot during a riot). That's leadership too.
Is it leaders you want on your team or good, honest, decent, hard-working, accountable people who are willing to take direction and get the job done more than they are about taking the credit? If your team of 12 was made up of 12 leaders, would anything get done? Each "leader" would expect to lead and expect that others would do what they say. They'd end up never coming to consensus about how to proceed. Think about that for a moment.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: We all need to stop throwing around the word "leader" like our organizations are full of them. Corporate America is so devoid of leadership that we've become self-anointing - take a course and be called a leader. People who have never led others can open up leadership courses and schools and call themselves experts and charge you money to teach you re-branded management courses. There's no certification to become a "leadership expert." So how can anyone claim to make you a leader? They can't. That's not leadership and it's an insult to real leaders to be lumped in with leadership imposters who claim they are leaders just because they finished a course.
Leadership is not exclusive to business and has really nothing to do with business. It's a fancy buzzword that we throw around when we really, for the most part, couldn't sum up leadership in a few sentences anyway.
That's why there are 350,000 books on Leadership on Amazon. There are that many varying opinions on it. That's why Leadership courses don't work. No one person has it completely right. If you're following only one person's interpretation of what Leadership is, you're missing the big picture and frankly, you're not much of a leader because you're following someone else's ideas. Leaders lead remember.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Do It "On-Purpose"
The key component in business success is the "why?" Why are you going to work each day? Why does it matter if you go? Why do you have passion? Why do you work hard? Why? Why? Why?
If anyone says it's for the money, they're doomed to follow the money and not the reason people give it to them - it will soon dry up.
If anyone says it's to survive, then that's what they'll do: survive - not succeed, just survive.
If someone says it's because this is my "purpose" then that's how they'll conduct themselves. There will be a purpose to every decision, relationship, hard work and focus. Timing won't matter because your purpose and your service will align. Some call that dumb luck. It's not dumb. And it's not luck. People who have dumb-luck usually have bad luck right behind it so it all balances out.
Have a reason to get out of bed every morning, have a reason to serve customers well, have a reason to treat everyone with respect, have a reason to create meaningful relationships, have a reason to be successful and you will find that you will receive all that is reason-able.
This is not some airy-fairy new-age crap at all. This is tried, tested and true. Have an attitude of "on-purpose" for everything you do and do it "on purpose" and you'll be surprised at how much you see positive changes in your business and career.
--
If anyone says it's for the money, they're doomed to follow the money and not the reason people give it to them - it will soon dry up.
If anyone says it's to survive, then that's what they'll do: survive - not succeed, just survive.
If someone says it's because this is my "purpose" then that's how they'll conduct themselves. There will be a purpose to every decision, relationship, hard work and focus. Timing won't matter because your purpose and your service will align. Some call that dumb luck. It's not dumb. And it's not luck. People who have dumb-luck usually have bad luck right behind it so it all balances out.
Have a reason to get out of bed every morning, have a reason to serve customers well, have a reason to treat everyone with respect, have a reason to create meaningful relationships, have a reason to be successful and you will find that you will receive all that is reason-able.
This is not some airy-fairy new-age crap at all. This is tried, tested and true. Have an attitude of "on-purpose" for everything you do and do it "on purpose" and you'll be surprised at how much you see positive changes in your business and career.
--
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Sharpest Tool In The HR Shed
Have you seen the newest Microsoft commercials featuring a four and a half year-old girl who can’t read what’s on-screen but knows how to operate the PC anyway? This is a prime example of the workforce of the future – Generation Z. You will need to at least be as sharp as these people to lead them. In ten years, 100 of the Fortune 500 companies will be using technology that hasn’t even been invented yet. Are you prepared to attract or even recognize that kind of talent?
The VP - HR in the organization of the future will need to be the sharpest executive in the organization. Not just a merely competent person but the most dynamic, most creative, cutting-edged person in the organization. The new Director of HR needs to be the person who can spot trends before they become trends, be willing to toss everything they know about HR and not be bound by tradition or limited thinking. They will possess leadership abilities which far surpass those of the CEO. People will hang on every word of the VP-HR. They will become a superstar to the HR world.
The HR department of the future will transform from an “inbound” philosophy where benefits are prepared, future hires resumes are filed away neatly and ads are prepared for newspapers and sites like Monster. (OK some HR departments aren't like this but most are). The new HR department of the future will have an “outbound” focus rivalling marketing and sales. The department itself will operate like a political campaign war-room and be abuzz with activity from early morning to late at night. The members of the HR team of the future will operate like sports scouts who go out and find the top talent. The HR scouts will go out across the nation, search out top talent, do their research and return to the war-room with their findings. Large numbers of team-members will sit around the table poring through mountains of paper, stats, YouTube videos, blogs, Facebook and Twitter sites, LinkedIn and a whole lot more. They will openly discuss the precise placement of each candidate within the organization. No longer will a position be advertised and be filled by just some warm body.
Human Resources will be headed by the brightest, sharpest, most creative minds in the organization in order to attract the brightest, sharpest and most creative minds in the world.
It won’t matter in the future how bright the CEO is. The people under that CEO are going to be a lot brighter anyway, faster, more connected and able to find out anything about anything in mere seconds. If the organization is full of really talented leaders, do you really need a really sharp CEO anyway? The faces of organizations are going to change drastically from the “top-down” model we suffer through now to the “collaborative philosophy” of the future.
Now, this is the part where it gets a little ugly and I am going to take a lot of flack for this one but it needs to be said. If you are currently heading up your organizations' HR department and you know that you are not the brightest, sharpest, most creative executive in the organization, then you, in the near future, will need to voluntarily step aside and make room for the brightest minds to take your position - if you really care about the future of your company, its future ideas, its future performance and its future survival. Otherwise, you will be standing in the way of organizational progress.
If you, as the current director of HR don't already possess the brightest, sharpest and most creative mind in your organization, then how in the world would you be able to recognize that kind of talent? From a resume? The resume is dead - especially with Generation Z getting ready to be hired in a few years. They will have no experience, no background and best of all, no fear about trying anything new. And they will be good at whatever they try to do because they will have viewed hundreds of thousands of videos posted on YouTube and be able to master whatever they watch in one viewing.
In the future, the young, energetic, bright-minds will run the HR departments because they will know where their peers can be found. They will speak the same language, they will interact the same way and they will be able to spot talent amongst their own better than any Director of HR who is five years away from retirement.
If you think technological changes come fast, wait until you see what happens with the organization of the future. Any organization that desperately clings to the current top-down model of today will be overtaken quickly by organizations that operate collaboratively.
How do you best engage and spur an entire workforce? Make them part of every decision. Collaboration. It’s coming. Are you prepared?
The VP - HR in the organization of the future will need to be the sharpest executive in the organization. Not just a merely competent person but the most dynamic, most creative, cutting-edged person in the organization. The new Director of HR needs to be the person who can spot trends before they become trends, be willing to toss everything they know about HR and not be bound by tradition or limited thinking. They will possess leadership abilities which far surpass those of the CEO. People will hang on every word of the VP-HR. They will become a superstar to the HR world.
The HR department of the future will transform from an “inbound” philosophy where benefits are prepared, future hires resumes are filed away neatly and ads are prepared for newspapers and sites like Monster. (OK some HR departments aren't like this but most are). The new HR department of the future will have an “outbound” focus rivalling marketing and sales. The department itself will operate like a political campaign war-room and be abuzz with activity from early morning to late at night. The members of the HR team of the future will operate like sports scouts who go out and find the top talent. The HR scouts will go out across the nation, search out top talent, do their research and return to the war-room with their findings. Large numbers of team-members will sit around the table poring through mountains of paper, stats, YouTube videos, blogs, Facebook and Twitter sites, LinkedIn and a whole lot more. They will openly discuss the precise placement of each candidate within the organization. No longer will a position be advertised and be filled by just some warm body.
Human Resources will be headed by the brightest, sharpest, most creative minds in the organization in order to attract the brightest, sharpest and most creative minds in the world.
It won’t matter in the future how bright the CEO is. The people under that CEO are going to be a lot brighter anyway, faster, more connected and able to find out anything about anything in mere seconds. If the organization is full of really talented leaders, do you really need a really sharp CEO anyway? The faces of organizations are going to change drastically from the “top-down” model we suffer through now to the “collaborative philosophy” of the future.
Now, this is the part where it gets a little ugly and I am going to take a lot of flack for this one but it needs to be said. If you are currently heading up your organizations' HR department and you know that you are not the brightest, sharpest, most creative executive in the organization, then you, in the near future, will need to voluntarily step aside and make room for the brightest minds to take your position - if you really care about the future of your company, its future ideas, its future performance and its future survival. Otherwise, you will be standing in the way of organizational progress.
If you, as the current director of HR don't already possess the brightest, sharpest and most creative mind in your organization, then how in the world would you be able to recognize that kind of talent? From a resume? The resume is dead - especially with Generation Z getting ready to be hired in a few years. They will have no experience, no background and best of all, no fear about trying anything new. And they will be good at whatever they try to do because they will have viewed hundreds of thousands of videos posted on YouTube and be able to master whatever they watch in one viewing.
In the future, the young, energetic, bright-minds will run the HR departments because they will know where their peers can be found. They will speak the same language, they will interact the same way and they will be able to spot talent amongst their own better than any Director of HR who is five years away from retirement.
If you think technological changes come fast, wait until you see what happens with the organization of the future. Any organization that desperately clings to the current top-down model of today will be overtaken quickly by organizations that operate collaboratively.
How do you best engage and spur an entire workforce? Make them part of every decision. Collaboration. It’s coming. Are you prepared?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Drivers of Employee Engagement
Question: Top research firms such as Towers-Perrin, Blessing-White, Gallup and others have been able to characterize collectively more than 20 drivers that drive employee engagement. What kinds of initiatives of Employee Engagement do you think can make a difference in times of economic recession?
Answer: Simple answer to your question, regardless of what's happening with the economy is this: anyone can be immediately engaged and it will sustain if they have a reason to get out of bed in the morning and to feel like whatever they are doing makes a difference.
That's it. If any person in any position can feel like their work and their contribution will mean something they will engage themselves. That's the difference between a career and just a job.
Sorry, I don't buy into the whole list of 20 drivers as it concerns engagement. Give people some meaning in their lives, show them how they make a difference, remind them of it now and then and they will do it because it's important. People want to feel valued. Important work is valuable work.
Make people feel as though they don't matter and they won't matter.
It's so simple. So, let's not make this discussion any harder than it needs to be. Oh, right, I forgot, some people like to turn something fairly simple into a complex science to prove that they've got more answers than the rest of us. That's not engagement - that's egotism. Big difference.
--
Answer: Simple answer to your question, regardless of what's happening with the economy is this: anyone can be immediately engaged and it will sustain if they have a reason to get out of bed in the morning and to feel like whatever they are doing makes a difference.
That's it. If any person in any position can feel like their work and their contribution will mean something they will engage themselves. That's the difference between a career and just a job.
Sorry, I don't buy into the whole list of 20 drivers as it concerns engagement. Give people some meaning in their lives, show them how they make a difference, remind them of it now and then and they will do it because it's important. People want to feel valued. Important work is valuable work.
Make people feel as though they don't matter and they won't matter.
It's so simple. So, let's not make this discussion any harder than it needs to be. Oh, right, I forgot, some people like to turn something fairly simple into a complex science to prove that they've got more answers than the rest of us. That's not engagement - that's egotism. Big difference.
--
Friday, July 10, 2009
Management By Fear?
Question: I feel that Fear may be one of the best motivators of performance. I have seen several leaders who are strict and tough with their people...to the extent that people fear the recoil of not living up to their expectations and therefore start shaping up. Low performers become high performers because of fear. Any views would be appreciated.
Answer: First of all, you said, "I have seen several leaders who are strict and tough with their people.." Let me correct you. Those people were NOT leaders. Leaders don't bully. They may have been tyrants or crappy managers but don't ever call them leaders. A manager is not automatically a leader because of his title. Managers manage. Leaders lead. If someone is shouting at you and putting fear into you, they are not leading you - they are chasing you - which means they are behind not in front.
People may seem to dig down and get a job done when they feel threatened but the truth is that when you threaten someone, the relationship changes forever. Your people will now start working on an exit strategy on their terms. They will no longer be engaged in their work - they will tolerate and humor their bosses until such time that they can leave on their own terms. In the meantime, they will do just enough to not get fired.
As for the people who are suddenly able to increase production because of fear, well they were obviously coasting and taking advantage of the company prior to the threat - otherwise there would have been no need for a threat. They should be fired regardless of their current performance. If the only time an employee performs is when threatened, then fire him. He's worthless and dragging the company down - others are having to carry him and his load and it's unfair to the people who do their work diligently. The employee in question wasn't doing more because more wasn't expected. That's just bad management.
Although, it may seem like productivity rises after a threat - the truth is that employees end up doing just enough to placate their bosses and not get fired. It's the illusion of productivity and it will be short-lived because the damage has been done - disconnected feelings of mistrust, frustration and regret will settle in.
Answer: First of all, you said, "I have seen several leaders who are strict and tough with their people.." Let me correct you. Those people were NOT leaders. Leaders don't bully. They may have been tyrants or crappy managers but don't ever call them leaders. A manager is not automatically a leader because of his title. Managers manage. Leaders lead. If someone is shouting at you and putting fear into you, they are not leading you - they are chasing you - which means they are behind not in front.
People may seem to dig down and get a job done when they feel threatened but the truth is that when you threaten someone, the relationship changes forever. Your people will now start working on an exit strategy on their terms. They will no longer be engaged in their work - they will tolerate and humor their bosses until such time that they can leave on their own terms. In the meantime, they will do just enough to not get fired.
As for the people who are suddenly able to increase production because of fear, well they were obviously coasting and taking advantage of the company prior to the threat - otherwise there would have been no need for a threat. They should be fired regardless of their current performance. If the only time an employee performs is when threatened, then fire him. He's worthless and dragging the company down - others are having to carry him and his load and it's unfair to the people who do their work diligently. The employee in question wasn't doing more because more wasn't expected. That's just bad management.
Although, it may seem like productivity rises after a threat - the truth is that employees end up doing just enough to placate their bosses and not get fired. It's the illusion of productivity and it will be short-lived because the damage has been done - disconnected feelings of mistrust, frustration and regret will settle in.
Threats and intimidation are so 1950's and any manager who still uses them needs to be fired and enrolled immediately into anger management before they are ever allowed to supervise again.
"Poor Leadership" Is An Oxymoron
First of all, there is no such thing as poor leadership. Poor leadership is an oxymoron. If it's poor, it's not leadership. There may be poor management or a complete lack of leadership but poor leadership is non-existent.
There are some leaders who are destructive - people who get others to follow their destructive ways. There are also some leaders who do things to better the planet. Think David Koresh versus Mother Teresa. Both were leaders who had plenty of followers - one destructive - one for the good.
Leadership is not a title nor a position. Leadership is not the result of taking a course or reading a book. Leadership is neither good nor poor - that is a values-based judgment any person can make based on their own values and ethics.
I've said this before, a parent is as much a leader as a CEO could ever aspire to be. Therefore, leadership is NOT exclusive to the workplace. Leadership has NOTHING to do with work. It is a character trait, a state of mind, an attitude. How do you define an attitude?
So, with that being said (and it needed to be said again), people who blame a lack of leadership or poor management for their inability to succeed are simply blaming someone or something for their own ineptness. Anyone can succeed under any circumstance if they so desire.
Sorry, but no one or no thing holds anyone back. You can succeed under any circumstance. If you don't, don't blame the person above you. You don't get a free pass to mediocrity just because your boss is a jerk. Your mediocre life is your doing - no one else's.
--
There are some leaders who are destructive - people who get others to follow their destructive ways. There are also some leaders who do things to better the planet. Think David Koresh versus Mother Teresa. Both were leaders who had plenty of followers - one destructive - one for the good.
Leadership is not a title nor a position. Leadership is not the result of taking a course or reading a book. Leadership is neither good nor poor - that is a values-based judgment any person can make based on their own values and ethics.
I've said this before, a parent is as much a leader as a CEO could ever aspire to be. Therefore, leadership is NOT exclusive to the workplace. Leadership has NOTHING to do with work. It is a character trait, a state of mind, an attitude. How do you define an attitude?
So, with that being said (and it needed to be said again), people who blame a lack of leadership or poor management for their inability to succeed are simply blaming someone or something for their own ineptness. Anyone can succeed under any circumstance if they so desire.
Sorry, but no one or no thing holds anyone back. You can succeed under any circumstance. If you don't, don't blame the person above you. You don't get a free pass to mediocrity just because your boss is a jerk. Your mediocre life is your doing - no one else's.
--
Thursday, July 09, 2009
David Versus Goliath - Modern Day
Dave Carroll, singer and songwriter from Halifax made a complaint to United Airlines about how they handled his guitars and Chicago's O'Hare Airport. United stonewalled him for a long time .... until he put together this video and posted it to YouTube.
Now United is finally responding - especially after 640,000 views of the video.
Now United is finally responding - especially after 640,000 views of the video.
Here's the problem, people will remember the chorus from this song for years and United will hurt because of it ... for years. They should have been accountable and fixed it right away but they didn't. And now it will cost them for a long time.
Customers have the power to make changes. Take that Attitude with you when you spend your money. You are in control.
--
No Precedent for New Precedent
The fast-food manager who steps over garbage and doesn't pick it up sets a new cleanliness precedent.
The manager who punches in 5-10 minutes late each day sets a new punctuality precedent.
The Safety Supervisor who exceeds the speed limit in the company truck sets a new safety compliance precedent.
The parent who allows jumping on the furniture one time sets a new rules precedent.
The person who gets behind the wheel with a few beers under their belt or takes a toke now and then sets a new responsibility precedent with their children.
The employee who gossips about other employees sets a new office-gossip precedent.
The manager who punches in 5-10 minutes late each day sets a new punctuality precedent.
The Safety Supervisor who exceeds the speed limit in the company truck sets a new safety compliance precedent.
The parent who allows jumping on the furniture one time sets a new rules precedent.
The person who gets behind the wheel with a few beers under their belt or takes a toke now and then sets a new responsibility precedent with their children.
The employee who gossips about other employees sets a new office-gossip precedent.
The supervisor who stands around talking just to be social and impeding an employee's work sets a new productivity precedent.
The employee who barges in on another employee without permission sets a new respecting co-workers precedent.
There is a simple common-sense rule to live by when it comes to setting precedents: lead by example. Your position in life affords you no exemptions: whether your a boss, a parent or an employee. The same rules apply to everyone in an organization or in a household. There's no special treatment because you're the boss. Get over yourself. If you want everyone in your workplace to play by the same rules then there can be no exemptions or special status.
There is a simple common-sense rule to live by when it comes to setting precedents: lead by example. Your position in life affords you no exemptions: whether your a boss, a parent or an employee. The same rules apply to everyone in an organization or in a household. There's no special treatment because you're the boss. Get over yourself. If you want everyone in your workplace to play by the same rules then there can be no exemptions or special status.
Memos and policies are lip-service. It's the attitude of your actions that matter most.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
The iPod and the Downfall of Communication
Question: I attended a workshop where email communication was discussed. I was very surprised how many people used email to “cover their tracks.” The rub with many audience members came when the facilitator said rather than engage in back and forth email discussion that has some emotion to it at work you are better served to pick up the phone and have an actual discussion with the other person. I was surprised how many people felt the need to “cover their tracks.” What do you think?
This is just one symptom of what is wrong with Corporate America. We are so afraid to have conversations not because we would have to justify it, but because we don't know how. The workshop facilitator probably never discussed how people don't even pick up their phones anymore when they ring. Everyone's screening by voice mail - so good luck having a phone conversation.
We've become a big society of self-centered "Me-Me-Me" and no one is allowed to interrupt our space, our flow or question what we're doing.
The thinking has become, "If I pick up the phone, it might be more work to do. If they don't leave a message it wasn't important." Then at the end of the day they drive home and right into the garage, close the doors to never be seen until next morning.
Of course it would be better to have a conversation but it's hard to do with business colleagues when we won't even talk to our next door neighbors. It's not a cover-your-tracks thinking, that's just an excuse. People are afraid to engage face-to-face. They've gotten lazy with social skills and are afraid that a conversation might bring up a topic that they don't know anything about and be embarrassed. They want to have conversations on their terms at their time. It’s a control issue.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: We've checked out of living with others. But the successful CEO's of tomorrow are going to be the one's who know how to look people in the eye, shake everyone’s hand, wear a real genuine smile, make some small talk and will refuse to be cut off from the rest of the world.
So if you want a shot at becoming CEO in your lifetime, get those iPod ear buds out of your head. Otherwise, don't whine when you get passed over for promotion. Oh, right. You'll miss it anyway because you don't answer your phone. You're right. It's not important.
--
This is just one symptom of what is wrong with Corporate America. We are so afraid to have conversations not because we would have to justify it, but because we don't know how. The workshop facilitator probably never discussed how people don't even pick up their phones anymore when they ring. Everyone's screening by voice mail - so good luck having a phone conversation.
We've become a big society of self-centered "Me-Me-Me" and no one is allowed to interrupt our space, our flow or question what we're doing.
The thinking has become, "If I pick up the phone, it might be more work to do. If they don't leave a message it wasn't important." Then at the end of the day they drive home and right into the garage, close the doors to never be seen until next morning.
Of course it would be better to have a conversation but it's hard to do with business colleagues when we won't even talk to our next door neighbors. It's not a cover-your-tracks thinking, that's just an excuse. People are afraid to engage face-to-face. They've gotten lazy with social skills and are afraid that a conversation might bring up a topic that they don't know anything about and be embarrassed. They want to have conversations on their terms at their time. It’s a control issue.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: We've checked out of living with others. But the successful CEO's of tomorrow are going to be the one's who know how to look people in the eye, shake everyone’s hand, wear a real genuine smile, make some small talk and will refuse to be cut off from the rest of the world.
So if you want a shot at becoming CEO in your lifetime, get those iPod ear buds out of your head. Otherwise, don't whine when you get passed over for promotion. Oh, right. You'll miss it anyway because you don't answer your phone. You're right. It's not important.
--
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Donald Trump Is No Leader
I am astounded that so many people when asked the same question (can you define leadership?) can have so many varying answers. What has become clear is that there is NO universally accepted definition of leadership. Why, because leadership is not tangible. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is not something you can define. It does not exist in the material way and there are as many opinions on it as people walking the Earth.
With that being said, if someone promises that they can make you a leader in exchange for money, you are dealing with a charlatan. If it can not be defined specifically, you shouldn't pay money to anyone who promises it to you.
A parent is as much a leader as a CEO could ever aspire to be. Therefore, leadership is NOT exclusive to the workplace. Leadership has NOTHING to do with work. It is a character trait, a state of mind, an attitude. How do you define an attitude?
You will never get people to follow you by simply checking off a list of traits. That definition of leadership is too cerebral. Leadership is a state of being, a way in which we walk the Earth. The belief or promotion of leadership being exclusive to the workplace is simply a money-grab: a way to market services to improve "leadership" even though it cannot be defined. Our thirst for being out front (the need for title of "leader") is so great, we are willing to pay handsome figures to people who have never done it to teach us how it's done.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: The truth is, people follow people they want to follow. There is no explanation for that. People who are natural leaders are people whom others wish to emulate. But if you are going to follow someone, it has got to be about following the person and not their results (money, power, fame). The accumulation of "stuff" is not what makes a leader. The Dalai Llama is a far better example of leadership than Donald Trump. People follow Trump for his power, money and fame when the world would be a different place if we'd all follow the Dalai Llama's example of treating our fellow man.
I'm not promoting any religion here. I'm making a point. Ruthless is not leadership. Money is not leadership. Power is not leadership. Fame is not leadership. But decency is. Making the world a better place is. Courtesy and caring is. When we as Corporate America learn to follow decency instead of thirsting for power, we'll finally start seeing the real leaders emerge - not these pompous, arrogant, egotists that we currently refer to as leaders.
Oh, and if you use the word "leader" to describe what you do, you aren't one. Get over yourself.
With that being said, if someone promises that they can make you a leader in exchange for money, you are dealing with a charlatan. If it can not be defined specifically, you shouldn't pay money to anyone who promises it to you.
A parent is as much a leader as a CEO could ever aspire to be. Therefore, leadership is NOT exclusive to the workplace. Leadership has NOTHING to do with work. It is a character trait, a state of mind, an attitude. How do you define an attitude?
You will never get people to follow you by simply checking off a list of traits. That definition of leadership is too cerebral. Leadership is a state of being, a way in which we walk the Earth. The belief or promotion of leadership being exclusive to the workplace is simply a money-grab: a way to market services to improve "leadership" even though it cannot be defined. Our thirst for being out front (the need for title of "leader") is so great, we are willing to pay handsome figures to people who have never done it to teach us how it's done.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: The truth is, people follow people they want to follow. There is no explanation for that. People who are natural leaders are people whom others wish to emulate. But if you are going to follow someone, it has got to be about following the person and not their results (money, power, fame). The accumulation of "stuff" is not what makes a leader. The Dalai Llama is a far better example of leadership than Donald Trump. People follow Trump for his power, money and fame when the world would be a different place if we'd all follow the Dalai Llama's example of treating our fellow man.
I'm not promoting any religion here. I'm making a point. Ruthless is not leadership. Money is not leadership. Power is not leadership. Fame is not leadership. But decency is. Making the world a better place is. Courtesy and caring is. When we as Corporate America learn to follow decency instead of thirsting for power, we'll finally start seeing the real leaders emerge - not these pompous, arrogant, egotists that we currently refer to as leaders.
Oh, and if you use the word "leader" to describe what you do, you aren't one. Get over yourself.
Friday, July 03, 2009
The Act of Leadership
Question posed yesterday: What do actors and leaders have in common?
I don't think that acting and leadership have a single thing in common. Actors spend their lives being other people. Leaders spend their lives fine-tuning themselves.
Leadership is not something you DO. Acting IS something you do. Management is something you do. Politics is something you do. Blogging is something you do and you do NOT have to be a leader to do any of them.
Leadership is NOT something you do. It is something that you "BE."
Management school is not leadership school. Acting school is not leadership school. These schools may sharpen your skill set but they do not make you a leader. Can leaders be great actors? Of course. But that doesn't automatically mean that actors can be leaders.
We all have to stop thinking that Leadership is something we can attain in a week-long course or by reading a book. That's a load of crap. Without addressing context (deep-seated opinions, beliefs, values - the way you view the world) in a course, you are not going to become a leader.
John Maxwell's "21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" is fundamentally wrong. His book teaches some new-age North American leadership culture as though if you simply do all of the 21 things in his book, you too will be a leader. That's pure bunk. Leadership can be learned but not by simply following 21 "laws." Maxwell has made a huge promise that if you follow the "laws" (and don't question them - remember they're irrefutable) in his book, you can become a leader. That is simply not true.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: We have muddied the waters in recent years by equating leadership with holding a top position in an organization. Leadership is not a position. Leadership is not something you do.
Leadership is a state of being, a state of mind, an Attitude. It is not the accomplishment of a series of tasks. It is not a passing grade at some course. It is not a title. It is not something you achieve. It is a way you exist. It is how you carry yourself. It is how you choose to walk the Earth.
Don't compare actors and leaders. It's like saying leadership is just acting. What an insult to genuine leaders. Leadership is a life-long pursuit - a work in progress. Everything else is a title.
--
I don't think that acting and leadership have a single thing in common. Actors spend their lives being other people. Leaders spend their lives fine-tuning themselves.
Leadership is not something you DO. Acting IS something you do. Management is something you do. Politics is something you do. Blogging is something you do and you do NOT have to be a leader to do any of them.
Leadership is NOT something you do. It is something that you "BE."
Management school is not leadership school. Acting school is not leadership school. These schools may sharpen your skill set but they do not make you a leader. Can leaders be great actors? Of course. But that doesn't automatically mean that actors can be leaders.
We all have to stop thinking that Leadership is something we can attain in a week-long course or by reading a book. That's a load of crap. Without addressing context (deep-seated opinions, beliefs, values - the way you view the world) in a course, you are not going to become a leader.
John Maxwell's "21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" is fundamentally wrong. His book teaches some new-age North American leadership culture as though if you simply do all of the 21 things in his book, you too will be a leader. That's pure bunk. Leadership can be learned but not by simply following 21 "laws." Maxwell has made a huge promise that if you follow the "laws" (and don't question them - remember they're irrefutable) in his book, you can become a leader. That is simply not true.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: We have muddied the waters in recent years by equating leadership with holding a top position in an organization. Leadership is not a position. Leadership is not something you do.
Leadership is a state of being, a state of mind, an Attitude. It is not the accomplishment of a series of tasks. It is not a passing grade at some course. It is not a title. It is not something you achieve. It is a way you exist. It is how you carry yourself. It is how you choose to walk the Earth.
Don't compare actors and leaders. It's like saying leadership is just acting. What an insult to genuine leaders. Leadership is a life-long pursuit - a work in progress. Everything else is a title.
--
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Attitude One of Seven
Attitude one of seven is the Attitude of Money, Security and Safety.
Don't you feel safe when you've got a few extra bucks (ideally anywhere from 3-12 months) set aside? How much better are you able to do your job knowing that your job is not tenuous? Do you feel secure about your contribution to your workplace and know that your contribution will be traded off with fairly good job-security?
To know that the your finances are in order, that your basic needs of food and shelter are well looked after, doesn't that bring a sense of relief? It's amazing how much more you can accomplish when you don't feel that downward pressure of out-of-control finances and uncertainty. To know all is well in your world allows your focus to be clearer.
This is the Attitude of Money, Security and Safety. When you have a steady stream of money (or a guaranteed source of it = regular paycheck) and are living within your means, there is a great sense of security that comes with that. You are secure in knowing that should something tragic befall you, you'd be OK at least in the short-term. Knowing that, there is a sense of safety for yourself and your family. Once you have that sense of safety, you will not find yourself taking stupid risks - you will still risk but it is likely to be calculated enough to the point that you wouldn't impact yourself beyond your financial cushion.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: If you're not feeling safe and secure in your world, then money is likely the issue. You have not given yourself a cushion should something happen. Go to work there first. Build your cushion. Give yourself some peace of mind, security and safety. The person who has the Attitude of Money, Security and Safety will outperform all others and likely attract better results.
If you or any of the people in your organization don't have this attitude nailed down, your corporate performance is going to suffer, morale will decline, worry and fear will permeate the organization and your people will be looking for new jobs at every opportunity - hoping the grass is greener somewhere else. Help your people develop the Attitude of Money, Security and Safety and you will have a healthier organization for it.
The Attitude of Money, Security and Safety is the first of the seven attitudes in my forthcoming book, Your Attitude Sucks - Fixing What's Wrong With Corporate America.
Don't you feel safe when you've got a few extra bucks (ideally anywhere from 3-12 months) set aside? How much better are you able to do your job knowing that your job is not tenuous? Do you feel secure about your contribution to your workplace and know that your contribution will be traded off with fairly good job-security?
To know that the your finances are in order, that your basic needs of food and shelter are well looked after, doesn't that bring a sense of relief? It's amazing how much more you can accomplish when you don't feel that downward pressure of out-of-control finances and uncertainty. To know all is well in your world allows your focus to be clearer.
This is the Attitude of Money, Security and Safety. When you have a steady stream of money (or a guaranteed source of it = regular paycheck) and are living within your means, there is a great sense of security that comes with that. You are secure in knowing that should something tragic befall you, you'd be OK at least in the short-term. Knowing that, there is a sense of safety for yourself and your family. Once you have that sense of safety, you will not find yourself taking stupid risks - you will still risk but it is likely to be calculated enough to the point that you wouldn't impact yourself beyond your financial cushion.
ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: If you're not feeling safe and secure in your world, then money is likely the issue. You have not given yourself a cushion should something happen. Go to work there first. Build your cushion. Give yourself some peace of mind, security and safety. The person who has the Attitude of Money, Security and Safety will outperform all others and likely attract better results.
If you or any of the people in your organization don't have this attitude nailed down, your corporate performance is going to suffer, morale will decline, worry and fear will permeate the organization and your people will be looking for new jobs at every opportunity - hoping the grass is greener somewhere else. Help your people develop the Attitude of Money, Security and Safety and you will have a healthier organization for it.
The Attitude of Money, Security and Safety is the first of the seven attitudes in my forthcoming book, Your Attitude Sucks - Fixing What's Wrong With Corporate America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)