01 Dec 09 The Ridiculous Focus on Approval Ratings

Ok, you can probably tell by my title where this blog is going to go. I have become increasingly more fascinated at the desire that we have to measure effectiveness primarily through numbers. I’ve written on this before in a corporate setting with the idea that measures established to make the vague more concrete become overly important and allow us to ignore the not-so-measurable environmental and cultural changes that are going on around us as leaders. I don’t think we should throw out all of the numbers…I just think we get obsessed with them.

But this is not my point right now. I have noticed more and more this obsession with approval ratings. For example, there was panic a week or so ago when President Obama’s approval rating dropped below 50%. Now it is back to above 50% but the whole issue was silly because there is a 5% margin of error. In other words, we have no idea whether 45% is that much different than 55% because the range of scores is 10%.

Ok, that’s one thing, but here’s the real issue. Leaders can not lead effectively worrying about rolling approval scores. President Obama was not elected to gain public approval. He was elected to lead the nation. The same is true of every governor, mayor and other official who serves public office. Chasing public approval is like chasing employee approval…there are times when you are simply not going to have it. Why is that?

The biggest reason that approval ratings need to be put back on the shelf is that they are short-term measures. Approval ratings as published always represent an immediate and timely response at a specific moment in time. Leadership on the other hand is measured over the long term. You can’t adequately make decisions that are visionary or complex and worry about the response you will get on the day you make that decision. This is the paradox of approval ratings. When published as if they are substantial news, we get confused and concerned because we get the impression that there is something terribly wrong.

One other thing to remember about approval ratings on a large scale. The most reported ratings, those conducted by Gallup, are conducted by phoning between 3000 and 4000 people with the question, “Do you approve of leadership?” or something to that effect. It is as simple as that. In other words, the breaking news that somebody’s approval rating has dropped or risen is based on an answer given by .00001 of the population.

This is the equivalent of asking 1 person in a sell-out crowd at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium to represent the views of the nation.

While it would be great if we could predict the effectiveness of our President or any other leader based on a simple measure of public opinion, we simply cannot. The same is true of corporate leaders or others in complex systems. There is simply too much we do not know at a given point of view and too great a diversity of opinion to ensure a valid measure. It is important that our leaders hear our views and opinions, but simply having these opinions is no reflection of the effectiveness of the leader.

What do you think?

Tags: accountability, approval ratings, communication, Global Leadership, integrity, leadership approval, performance, politics

13 Nov 09 Make your Goals STRONG instead of SMART

In the last post I talked about the difference between assessment and evaluation and how both are needed in order to provide strong performance management feedback to employees. In this post I would like to finally offer an alternative to the well-used (and perhaps outdated) SMART acronym of goal-setting. In the standard approach, goals are defined as good if they are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-Bound. These are o.k. characteristics and they have worked for decades. However, I am not sure they cover all of the elements necessary for successful goal-setting in times of great challenge. Today we need more than smart goals…we need STRONG ones.

Simple. For a goal to be useful, it has to be understandable. By “simple” I don’t mean it has to be elementary, but it needs to be focused on a single activity and outcome. Goals that have multiple parts are hard to understand and are difficult to deliver since the employee is unsure of what part of the goal is most important. A simple goal for one person may be an overly complicated goal for another person so this is a relative term based on the individual and the task at hand.

Timely. For a goal to be useful it also has to be relevant to the situation at the moment. Each goal should have an importance that is immediate. If you truly want me to make this goal a priority, I have to see how it plays a role in our success right now.

Realistic. For a goal to have its desired effect on performance, it has to be seen by the recipient of the goal as somehow possible to achieve. Unrealistic goals create demoralized troops. This is a point of negotiation. If you see the goal as realistic and your follower does not, you need to take the time to explain your thinking in a way that they can see the same reality you do. This does not mean the goal has to be easy..just possible.

Objective. For goals to be strong, they must be viewed as unbiased and real. One of the definitions of “objective” is “having a real existence.” If you want me to attempt to achieve a goal, it has to be termed in a way that it is real. “Making people happy” is not an objective goal. “Improving customer satisfaction” is.

Necessary. Useless goals are the bane of high-performance. For a follower to be motivated to achieve a goal he or she has to see the value of the goal they are pursuing. Goals need to be provided in a context of understanding so that employees understand not only the specifics of the goal, but also the goal’s importance in the bigger picture. The necessity of the goal can be a strong performance driver, especially for employees who are personally committed to the overall success of the department or organization.

Grand. Goals need to be aspirational. They need to represent performance that requires ingenuity and persistence. They need to be challenging. Remember that I suggested they are realistic, which means they are not SO grand that they are unattainable. But realistic does not mean that it’s a piece-of-cake…it just means that it is doable. Grand goals are goals that stretch us to grow in ways that mediocre goals do not. Grand goals can be exciting, if they are agreed upon by both the leader and the follower.

Ultimately, this last statement is the key to successful goal-setting. Whether SMART or STRONG or some combination of the two, goals that are imposed on people tend to be less successful than those that are established with people. A goal-setting session should be a dialogue…the actual establishment of the goal should be the outcome of the dialogue. “Gifting” your employees with their goals creates confusion about what you mean and what the priorities are. But a goal-setting session where each individual has the opportunity to share in the crafting of the objective can be inspirational in itself.

Tags: communication, expectations, goal-setting, motivation, strong goals, trust, vision

06 Nov 09 Chickens, Eggs and Change

There is an interesting debate going on amongst those who have little else to debate these days. The question is this. For effective change to take place, does one first change the organizational structure and systems and then adapt a strategy (and human strategy as well) to fit the new structure and system, or does one start with the strategy and mindset changes and then adapt the systems and structure to fit it?

This is one of those interesting leadership questions because, if you have an answer, you probably believe it is the only logical answer to have. Of course my answer is one of those amazingly frustrating answers for many people. I believe it depends on the change being instituted and the context of the specific leadership and organizational challenge.

In my opinion, it is possible for a full scale and successful change initiative to be instigated by the recognition that current systems, hierarchies and processes are either producing less than desirable results or, more likely, are not creating results quickly enough. This is a carry over from the industrial age that we haven’t quite settled yet. Systems that create efficiency and run at the lowest cost are not necessarily the same systems that create the greatest speed or quality. As I’ve written here before, the obsession with cost reduction has created many organizations that now find themselves able to do things inexpensively, but without innovation or speed to market.

On the other hand, organizations that have flat structures, few complex processes and an innovative mindset are not immune to dealing with change. The current economy for example has hit everybody. Many of these innovative companies (Google, 3M, Apple) have come to recognize that their cowboy mindset worked well in good times, but did not prepare them for the more team-oriented approach that may be necessary today. Yes, these companies have had teams forever, but the kind of collaboration that is necessary now is so entirely cross functional and focused that few organizations are accustomed to it. These aren’t organizational design issues…these are internal issues. In these cases, the mindset has to change first, and the design will follow.

I believe what is most important is the manner in which the change process is approached. First of all, we should quit acting as if the “change process” is a unique and perhaps frequent stand alone event. In the current environment, change is not separate from leadership…it IS leadership. Second, for either design driven or internal driven change to work, stakeholders have to be enlisted early in the game. We have become a complex environment and diverse perspectives will provide the framework for understanding what and how change will enable the new corporate.

Finally, we have to get away from believing that there is one way to either make change happen or even to describe the phenomenon that occurs during change within an organization. We have become comfortable with approaches and theories that date back to a much more stable and industrial age. For change to work, leaders have to have open minds and hearts and be willing to understand that they don’t understand.

“>

Tags: accountability, change, communication, culture, Global Leadership, innovation, Leadership characteristics, trust, vision

30 Oct 09 Effective Leadership Presentations

There has been a lot of study and writing on the act of oral presentation so it would seem that there’s probably not much more we need to learn, eh? As leaders we know we need to “Tell em what we’re going to tell em, tell em and then tell em what we told em.” At least that’s the conventional wisdom. The problem of course is that being redundant is not only sometimes very boring it is also not a guarantee that our message will have any impact at all.

I generally have an immediate suspicion of conventional wisdom anyway. Typically it became conventional wisdom over a long period of time and is so general as to be not of much use. At the very least, conventional wisdom tends to be…well…conventional. In other words, average is not what we’re after here so perhaps we need to try a little harder. Recent evidence in brain research of participants listening to speakers gives us some ideas as to how we might make presentations to our followers more powerful. Here are three ideas for example that are not likely to be intuitive or in your basic speech workshop:

1. Focus on multiple processing: Very often leaders approach communication to groups of people as information dumps. A few charts, a bunch of numbers, and that’s about it. Then they wonder why nobody seems to remember what they said. Research however indicates that the more diversity in the presentation, not just with information but with our senses, the more likely we are to retain the information. Most speakers stick to audio and visual, but are there some ways you can bring your message alive by activity within the group. Can you pass out an object or have them engage in an activity to illustrate your point. The more ways they have to experience the information the more likely they are to retain it.

2. Be “level” with the audience: Of course we have been trained to do this through a story or joke or whatever else we throw into the introduction of the speech, but connecting with the audience is really about being a credible and trustworthy source. Be real and authentic. Avoid acting out the power position. For example, if these are employees within your company or department do you really need a formal introduction? Do your assistants really need to be visible to everybody all of the time? Come down the hierarchy for awhile and really speak with your folks.

3. Tie into existing knowledge: While every presentation should have a unique component (otherwise, why are you doing it?) participants can make meaning of your discussion more easily if it is related to stuff they already know. Whether it is a continuation of an earlier presentation, connected to current events, or even product related, it is helpful to overtly tie your new information to previously understood content. The more you can help the audience make the connection, the less cognitive effort it takes for them to figure it out on their own.

One thing stands out above all others when it comes to making presentations with impact. If you are not considering your audience in the process of creating your speech, you will not be as effective as you could be. Speaking is all about the audience. If you have others who are creating your speech, make sure that they are doing it from the perspective of the receiver. No matter how powerful a leader you are, if you stand there and tell us what you think is important, without considering what is important to us and how we can best understand the information, your presentations will fall short every time.
“>

Tags: change, commitment, communication, leadership, performance

28 Oct 09 Leaders Behind Closed Doors

I was asked a week ago by Fox News to comment on the issue of the Health Care Debate. It startled me a bit because I’m not really a health care debate kind of expert and Lord knows I couldn’t solve the issue any faster than anybody else. But their question was specific: “Is it a problem that our leaders have taken the debate behind closed doors?” Of course, Fox being known for it’s “fair and balanced” reporting, I searched through their archives and discovered that they had started this ongoing story showing the closed door in Washington and asking the question, “What are they doing in there?”

In case your not familiar with the process, the way this works is that Fox in this case, or any network for that matter, asks their “expert” a few questions, you give them your answers and then they decide if they want you on their show. This is not an issue of censorship or some manipulation as much as it is their way of ensuring that they don’t have three people with exactly the same opinion or one person who doesn’t have anything to say, etc. Unfortunately we weren’t able to find a studio close to where I was at the time so I didn’t make it to the party.

That was disappointing because, as it turns out, I DID have an opinion on the subject. I just didn’t know it until they asked the question. Yes, it can be a problem when leaders go into seclusion to have top secret discussions because, the longer we don’t know what is going on, the more likely we are to fill in the gaps and speculate as to what is going to happen. In general terms, the more transparent, the better.

However, with the health care debate, if there is truly going to be a debate and an effort to come up with a compromise solution, it would almost have to be done behind closed doors. Democrats and Republicans alike painted themselves into a corner during the histrionics of the townhall meetings, tea parties and the like. By

playing to the drama of the moment, they scripted themselves into a non-negotiable position, an all-or-nothing position. If they are going to reach a compromise, they will have to do it outside of the eye of the media where image is everything. The American public has a right to know what impacts them. We have a right to be heard on the issues, which was the purpose of the townhalls and the various forums that have been held in the last months. And we will want to know, when we are considering our representatives for re-election, where they actually stood on the issues that are important to us. But we have to be willing to let them do the work we have put them there to do. We need to quit second-guessing the process and let the debate proceed to some outcome. Otherwise, our leaders aren’t leading…they’re playing to the media.

We have created such an atmosphere of political mistrust that any time we can’t hear what our politicians are saying or see what they are doing, we are suspicious. Actually, even when we CAN hear what they are saying we are suspicious. This is a bigger issue. Any survey I’ve read in the last 24 months has said that we simply have no trust in our elected leadership. We vote for the one that we mistrust the least! This has got to change if we are ever going to have the kind of healthy and productive dialogue that can move us forward. I would even go so far as to say that we actually have some politicians that are trying to do the right thing, both Democrat and Republican, and that deserve to be trusted. But there’s too much drama. The legitimate voices of reasoned debate are drowned out by the screaming and yelling of the overly pumped up. That’s why the current meetings are behind closed doors…for a little silence to be able to get the work done.

Neal Cavuto, in this pre-interview conversation, asked me if what I was trying to say was that the media needed to shut up and let the politicians do their thing. My answer…not really. I mean, the public doesn’t trust the media either. There are conflicting goals in play between the need to present crucial news and the need to draw viewers and readers to the drama. If there were no cameras there would be no theater. On the other hand, there would be no accountability either. The media should keep doing what it’s doing, but do it honestly. Editorial should be acknowledged as editorial and news should be presented as news. We need to separate the entertainment from the journalism for sure but I honestly believe that the vast majority of Americans are quite capable of doing that. They may not be the most vocal, but they are a pretty smart audience.

Tags: commitment, communication, honesty, leadership, Leadership Decision-making, Leadership Integrity Quotient, trust

09 Oct 09 Leading with the Brain

First, let’s get one thing out in the open for those of you who have not figured this out yet. I’m a nerd. There are certain things that I really get jazzed by that to others would be mindnumbingly boring. I get that and I’m comfortable with it. I can live with myself.

Having said that, there is the coolest article in the Autumn 2009 edition of strategy+business (yes, I subscribe) on recent neuroscience research and the brain that relates directly to the issue of effective leadership.Of course I’m such a nerd that I couldn’t just read the article but I had to find the sources that were cited in the article and read them too. If you hang out with me, it’s just a moment-by-moment flow of excitement!

Actually, it is honestly a very interesting article titled “Managing with the Brain in Mind,” by David Rock of the NeuroLeadership Institute and author of the book “Your Brain at Work.” In this article, Rock makes the argument that a person’s job is not simply a transaction—they work for you, they get paid. While this is an important aspect of our work, even more importantly, we view our workplace as a social system. Much research has shown that the brain is a social mechanism, looking for connections between people, events and data, so it would only make sense that much of our work life would be seen the same way.

The interesting addition to this information that Rock adds to the dialogue is that the concept of “threat” applies to our primacy of social interaction. In other words, perceived threats to the social aspect of our work life will evoke the same response as perceived personal threats to our being. Our brains function in a way that we attempt to either flee the threat (by checking out, disengaging, or actually leaving our jobs) or fight it (through aggression either passive or active). Rock proposes that there are five qualities that enable employees to mitigate and handle these threats and that these are crucially important for leaders to understand:

Status: Research indicates that we are constantly assessing our status in relative terms to those around us. Threats to status are endemic in the organization when we give performance reviews, promotions or even passing comments in staff meetings. Research also indicates that something as simple as acknowledging a followers contribution can raise perceived status. Leaders who are sensitive to the status needs of their followers can offset this threat by the way they interact.

Certainty: As humans, we love stability and certainty in part because these are conditions that are less taxing to our brains and bodies. When we are not having to worry about what happens next, we are able to operate in a comfort zone. On the other hand, uncertainty registers in our brain (in the anterior cingulate cortex!) as a potential threat until investigated and understood. Transparency is the antidote to this issue. By sharing as much information as possible and keeping followers informed about current and future issues, effective leaders are able to avoid short-circuiting the resources necessary to get the job done.

Autonomy: Autonomy is the feeling that we as individuals are able to make our own decisions and chose our own courses of action. Perceptions of limited autonomy create a feeling of helplessness and a threat response related to the fact that our survival is not by our own choosing. Leaders who want to reinforce autonomy know that being micromanaged is a threat felt at a very deep level. Followers need choices, not just in the details of their work but in the bigger picture issues of balance and priority.

Relatedness: In our best efforts, and for the sake of diverse opinions and experiences, we often put together teams of unrelated people to focus on a crucial issue. However, the neural pathways triggered by meeting new people put us in a friend-or-foe assessment phase. While many of us like to think that we trust people until they show us that we can’t trust them, the fact is that we are suspicious at the onset of any new relationship. Leaders need to be thoughtful about the teams they form and, if made up of unrelated people, the team needs time to assimilate. Further, by cutting off individuals from social interaction, we stimulate the same kind of threat response. Leaders need to attend to the social needs of those they assign to positions that will keep them isolated.

Fairness: Fairness is a concept that is also related to the limbic system of our brains. If violated, the response is hostility and lack of trust. As we have discussed in this blog before, I will only commit my actions to you if I trust you. If I don’t trust you, I spend a lot of time in protectionist mode, making sure that all of my bases are covered and that I am in a position to survive if and when you betray me. Openness and transparency are again the best responses to this issue. Leaders who are clear about the process they are using, and then apply it consistently, are seen as more fair than those who keep their thoughts a secret.

David Rock uses SCARF as the acronym for these behaviors and as the foundation for advising leaders on how to manage people in the manner that their brains work. While I think it is highly interesting and helpful, I also don’t see neuroscience as the unifying theory to human behavior. It doesn’t answer the whole question of why we do what we do, but cognitive science may provide part of the answer. As a survival instinct, we act to avoid threats and, if brain research can give us some insight on what triggers the threat response, it is a valuable addition to the toolbox of the leader.

Tags: change, communication, Energy, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, trust

08 Sep 09 Speechs to Engage your Followers

How do leaders motivate followers in troubling times? Look no further than the President’s speech to schoolchildren.

The mood of the country has become even more critical since the beginning of the last school year, so President Obama’s audience of schoolchildren, parents and teachers are starting the term with a greater level of uncertainty about a greater number of things than before. In his speech, the President had the daunting task of not only reassuring his audience, but also motivating them to become involved in their own future. You can follow the same structure as you address your employees, volunteers or members in moving them from victim to active participant.

1. “I know where you are coming from today.” President Obama’s speech began with a connection. I went to school as well and I remember what it’s like on the first day. Had he given his speech on the second day, or the second week of school, he would not have been able to do this. He chose THIS day as a way to connect with his audience from the beginning. When you are planning to speak to your followers, see if there is a day or an event that you can select that will allow you to show the common ground from the beginning. Then relate to them about that day.

2. “This is important to me.” The President revealed the importance of the topic very early in his speech by mentioning all of the speaking he has done previously. He mentioned his speeches on education, his speeches to teachers and his speeches to parents. Even to a kindergartner, it is clear that the President feels this is important because he has obviously talked a lot about it. Once you have related to your audience, let them know the topic you are speaking on his important to you. Don’t just say it is…provide the evidence.

3. “You are the key to success.” Don’t mislead or lie to your followers about this, but if you truly believe that your employees are the difference between success and failure, tell them so. If you want to engage your audience, show them how YOU see them in the grand scheme of things. President Obama pointed out to his audience that, while he has spoken to many different constituents, the students themselves will make the difference.

4. “Because you are so important, you have a great responsibility.” This is the focal point to the President’s speech and, as a leader trying to engage your followers, this should be the focal point for you. Engaging employees has nothing to do with how hard YOU have been working or how much YOU care about the topic. If you have established already that it is important to you, you can then focus on what is important to the rest of us…us. The important issue here is that you first have to establish our role, then you can remind us that we are accountable.

5. “You are showing the way already.” Through the use of many positive examples, President Obama also shows his audience that they are capable of making the right choices and benefiting from their responsibility. He emphasizes his message of accountability and commitment through using personal examples (“I understand”) but more importantly, through examples of people from the same audience who have been successful. Corporate leaders especially tend to be unaware of the positive examples in their workforce. If you can include the element of success in your presentation, you can encourage your followers that it is possible.

6. “Be proud of who you are.” This is not only a message about individuality, but a message of pride in the group. For you as a leader, it can be pride in the organization. President Obama not only talked to his audience about their abilities as individuals, but included one sentence that you can emulate to support the followers as a team. His comment was, “The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things get tough.” He is relating to the pride of his audience in their country. As a leader, you can do the same about your organization.

7. “Work with me on this.” The final section of President Obama’s address could be done a number of ways, but in essence he is reminding his audience that all of the outside sources…his office, the teachers, the parents and the system in general…are doing everything they can to contribute to success. This reminds the audience that they are a part of the bigger picture and that not only does the “boss” want them to take responsibility, he EXPECTS them to do so. Consider your relationship with your followers and find a way to include the entire system in the future success of the organization.

Tags: authenticity, communication, congruency, Energy, engagement, expectations

28 Aug 09 Leadership Karaoke

“I am a student of leadership,” one MBA graduate student recently told me. “I have studied the great leaders and have chosen a mix of characteristics that will be my leadership style.”

If you were watching this conversation you would have seen that this student was quite serious in his statement of fact. He had decided that he needed the decision making ability of a Jack Welch, the calm coolness of Colin Powell, and the drive to master the marketplace of Jeff Bezos. While I wish this young man all the best in his leadership aspirations, all I could think of was how easy it would be if there was really a menu from which one could pick and chose. It made me think of a new term for this style of development. We’ll call it “Karaoke Leadership.”

I’ve actually known quite a few Karaoke Leaders in my time. They read about Coach Wooden and then call their team together and try to incorporate his techniques of motivation. They read about GE and institute “workouts” and start devising plans to lay off the bottom 10% of performers. They study Meg Whitman and attempt to position themselves as charismatic speakers and communicators.

Unfortunately, even the best Karaoke Leader can only pull of the trick to a certain point. Only Coach John Wooden can be Coach Wooden and only Meg Whitman can speak as Meg Whitman can speak. Don’t even get me STARTED about Jack Welch and GE! Most leaders who try to emulate Neutron Jack discover that (a) they aren’t at GE, (b) it’s not the 90s and (c) they aren’t Jack Welch. Which brings me to my suggestion of the day.

Rather than trying to be the best Colin Powell that you can muster, try being the best YOU that you can be. Each of these people, and many more, are undeniably great leaders. They have come into a specific situation at a specific time that allows them to use their specific strengths in a way that has had a great impact. Studying the great leaders can be tremendously effective…especially if you study the manner in which they made their decisions, overcame obstacles, and used their vision to inspire their followers.

To be a great leader yourself, however, requires that you look at these experiences, make your observations, and then apply them to your own situation and your own set of strengths and talents. For example, Welch had the courage and the foresight to see that massive downsizing was required in quick order, but had to be done while building a culture of success at GE. He mastered this in large part on the strength of his own personality but also in his strategic brilliance, in-depth planning and overall chutzpah. Applying the Welch model means applying your own courage and action orientation to getting things done that need to be done. Choosing to sing the Jack Welch song as if you are Jack Welch is guaranteed to create problems in the ability of people to see your own integrity and your own strengths.

Success through the biography of others is through application, not emulation. Look at the leaders you admire, whether they have multiple best-selling books or happen to run the public library. Look at HOW they do what they do and see if there are lessons that you can apply to your own set of strengths. The authentic leader doesn’t try to lead through following somebody else’s words or music but by writing her own song. Make yours an original and your followers may be more willing to sing along.

Tags: authenticity, communication, Global Leadership, integrity

01 Jun 09 Now is the time for development

Many managers and leaders today have never had to deal with the uncertainty and challenges of a volatile environment such as we have today. The skills developed in maintaining a growing company, or even in dealing with the normal challenges of any organization, are not sufficient for ties of great change. The “soft” skills of communication, leadership, team building and trust are the very issues that will challenge you the most in the current environment. As the “quick-win” action of cutting back on training is so common, the result is a decrease in employee morale and in the ability to overcome the ever-changing obstacles of the current business environment.

This is not to say that leadership development budgets should be untouched or overlooked in turbulent times. In fact, now more than ever, you must make sure that time and money are not being wasted on ineffective or unnecessary training investments. Like any responsible cost decisions, you should examine the training activities and ask:

Are we focused on the right targets for the right people at the right time?
Are we using the right methodology for the best return on investment?

Your training should be explicitly linked to (a) your primary business objectives and initiatives and (b) your employees’ effectiveness and engagement. This means, beyond traditional skill-based training, your leaders need to learn how to effectively engage the organization, communicate the key change messages, and establish (or re-establish) trust throughout the organization.

It is far more effective to spend a larger percentage of your budget on a smaller number of training initiatives than it is to spend a little bit of money on many unfocused topics. Especially in challenging times, executives should take the time to decide exactly which areas are the most crucial for their business and provide adequate training in those limited areas. A focus on a few key areas will not only give you the greatest return on training investment, it will also communicate a message to your organization about where the key priorities lie.

In addition, there are many ways that leaders can participate in training beyond the traditional classroom initiative. Many teleseminars, webinars and other forums of technology driven training can provide a powerful yet inexpensive method of continuing your talent development. In this case, don’t let old prejudices eliminate the possibilities…each of these forms of training has become more and more sophisticated and many providers offer customized sessions, delivered either only through technology or in a “blended-solution” model that combines in-person training with distance learning. These programs can be highly engaging and interactive while at the same time offering tremendous economies of scale and reduced logistics costs (travel, etc.)

Business environments will continue to go through changing opportunities and concerns. The real challenge for today’s leader is to remember that they need to do more than merely “survive” the current conditions; they need to come through those conditions in a stronger and more competitive position. Focused and responsible training can ensure your organization has the tools and the abilities it needs for maximum success.

Tags: communication, leadership development, Technology, webinars

09 Feb 09 It’s a (Leadership) Jungle Out There!

First, some business. We will be going to a Monday/Thursday publication schedule for the Global Leadership Dialogue blog, with the exception of special issues along the way (something we just can’t wait to write about for example!). This will give us a more sustainable regular schedule and perhaps a reason to get through Wednesday!!

Now, I need your help. We have been doing workshops, both globally and in the U.S., pretty steadily for the last two years. And we continue to see and hear about various wild animals regardless of the setting we are in. It is as if we are on a “Leadership Safari” where some animals are rare and only occasionally seen while others appear to be everywhere. Here are some examples:

1. The Elephant — while enormous, this character is able to be in the room, be seen by everybody in the room, yet avoid overt detection. He’s so awkward to discuss, and seemingly so huge, it is as if he is not there.

2. The Giraffe — with a head high in the clouds, this creature seems to only care about what is way out on the horizon, not stopping very long to look down and see the ground. Known for walking into crevices and tripping over obstacles, the Leadership Giraffe misses the reality by only looking at the future.

3. The Zebra — this is one of the most confusing animals on the Leadership Safari because it seems to never come to resolution. Is it white with black stripes, or black with white stripes? Of course, some could argue that answering that question is irrelevant to anything, but given the opportunity, the zebra will show up just for the sheer joy of the argument.

4. The Lion — clearly one of the most confident of the Leadership Animals, the lion in the jungle is such a hot topic that he evokes great fear and emotion whenever discussed. He believes a little fear is a good thing for the other jungle animals…keeps them on their toes and full of urgency. Interestingly enough, none of the lions we have seen actually seem to notice that their roar only works for a little while. These creatures don’t tend to fade away…they just disappear one day.

5. The Monkey — Entertaining as long as you don’t get too close. The Monkey appears to be focused and important when all of the sudden, he will simply pick up handfuls of dung and start throwing them at anybody around. Monkey’s can’t be trusted so you have to be careful around them.

6. The Warthog — This Leadership Animal keeps her nose to the ground, working diligently and pushing things around, blissfully unaware of anything that’s going on around her. A specialist at the “low hanging fruit,” this creature is not known for vision.

7. The Python — One of the most dangerous of the Leadership Pack, this creature eventually takes over and swallows everything. A Python Issue can make a 1 hour meeting last 4 hours, or at least seem to.
8. The Sacred Cow — These critters are rampant throughout the Leadership Jungle. One of the most interesting thing about Sacred Cows is that they are never seen by their owners. Sacred Cows belong to “somebody else,” since no leader would ever want to be caught with one.

Ok, that’s a brief description of some of the animals in the leadership jungle. I welcome your opinions and also your experiences. Have you seen other creatures we need to include?

Tags: communication, elephant in the room, ideas, issues, sacred cow