How many times have you heard someone give a great presentation in front of a group, and thought that you'd love to be able to speak like the presenter? Or that the speaker had "natural abilities?" Have you also attended presentations when you felt that the speaker was awful, boring, uninspiring or boring? What are the factors that make a public speech good?
(1) The first "must" of a good speech is preparation. The speaker must obviously know his topic well, but must also know the group that he is presenting it do. The best presentations involve a combination of humor, entertainment, participation, visual aids (without being overly dependent), and worthwhile content.
(2) A speaker must involve the group from the onset. One of the major errors many speaker make is that they tell the audience "to sit back, relax and enjoy the presentation." When audiences sit back and enjoy, they generally are not participating. A presenter must involve and challenge his audience.
(3) Effective presenters do not read their speeches. While it is alright to have notes, PowerPoint slides, and even some key ideas, there is no surer way to "lose" one's audience than to read to them.
(4) Practice is essential. While a presentation should not appear stoic, stilted, or memorized, when speeches are disorganized, or someone loses his place, the cause is generally lost.
(5) Have an agenda or program and stick to it. Let the audience know at the beginning the topics you plan to discuss, and encourage them to take notes, and to get involved. Any good program reserves sufficient time to answer questions, or clear up confusion.
(6) Do not over-estimate or under-estimate your audience. A good way to avoid that is to say something like, "As many of you know." Always make your points clearly.
(7) Do not believe that stating something once is sufficient. Many statistics have indicated that there something known as the "3 to 7 Rule," which means that in any one presentation you must state something at least three times (preferably in different ways to keep it interesting), and if the presentation is part of a series and the subsequent parts are given within a short period, then you must make the same points again (at least for a total of 7 times). Statistics also indicate that if the next installment of the series is more than 10 days after the first, that the total number of repetitions must be increased.
(8) Involve the audience. Do role playing, proactive exercises, and a speaker must be willing and able to "get right up into an audience member's face."
(9) There must be a beginning, middle and an end. It is best to take brief breaks after sixty to ninety minutes, because most people learn and remember, and pay attention better in shorter intervals.
(10) Never let a particular audience member dominate the program. Often, certain audience members speak to be heard, rather than for learning purposes. A presenter must be able to maintain control at all times.
These ten steps are merely the basics of becoming a proficient presenter and public speaker. It takes confidence, practice and preparation. Speakers should always have as their ultimate goal that every attendee leaves his meeting feeling he spent his time in a valuable and worthwhile manner.
Enjoy the Home of the RICH IDEAS, + RICH BRODY'S TAKE, w/ Blogs about RE, negotiations, finance, etc., Leadership Planning, politics, etc. While there are many points of view, this blog is intended to "cut through the spin," and provide a unique, innovative and provocative insight into current issues. The intent of the blog is to be updated several times per week. Real estate info: http://PortWashingtonLongIslandRealEstate.com and the PLAN2LEAD website: http://plan2lead.net
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Focus On The Big Picture
There is an important and relevant sports adage that tells one to "Keep your eye on the ball," that is certainly as appropriate to many other aspects of life as it is to sports. It is especially true when it comes to being a leader of an organization.
In my three decades of working with organizations, one of the most pervasive obstacles has been leaders inability to often accurately identify and then accurately an effectively respond to the "big picture." Many of us have been told that we should not "sweat the petty stuff," meaning we should focus and spend our energy related to the more important issues. Unfortunately, however, many untrained leaders of organizations forget to apply this same principle to leadership, and organizational needs.
On far too many occasions, I have observed organizations get bogged down in discussing what has often been a rather trivial and mundane point or issue, and spending so much time and energy on this minor point, that important issues are either delayed, or sometimes never implemented. Too many organizational leaders "lead" reactively instead of proactively, and fail to take charge, and to actually lead their organization.
The most important thing for an organization and its leaders to consider is what is needed to assure the organization's mission is furthered. All actions and programs should, at least partly, be related to the central mission. Often, an organization needs to evolve its mission statement and its mission to better relate to changing times and changing needs. This being said, organizations must remember that evolving does not mean abandoning its mission (or central reason for being), but rather generally simply require some tweaking and updating.
Many individuals thrust into leadership positions do not understand their organization's mission, however. This is often due to the complex and unclear way that many mission statements are written. Mission statement should be simple and basic, and clearly and concisely state the reason for being. These statements should motivate readers to action. However, another obstacle facing too large a number of organizations is the lack of properly qualified and trained leaders. Organizations that emphasize professional multi-stage, ongoing leadership training invariably get far better results than those that do not.
Real leaders always focus on the big picture, while making sure that all necessary details are properly in place, to assure the optimum chance for success.
In my three decades of working with organizations, one of the most pervasive obstacles has been leaders inability to often accurately identify and then accurately an effectively respond to the "big picture." Many of us have been told that we should not "sweat the petty stuff," meaning we should focus and spend our energy related to the more important issues. Unfortunately, however, many untrained leaders of organizations forget to apply this same principle to leadership, and organizational needs.
On far too many occasions, I have observed organizations get bogged down in discussing what has often been a rather trivial and mundane point or issue, and spending so much time and energy on this minor point, that important issues are either delayed, or sometimes never implemented. Too many organizational leaders "lead" reactively instead of proactively, and fail to take charge, and to actually lead their organization.
The most important thing for an organization and its leaders to consider is what is needed to assure the organization's mission is furthered. All actions and programs should, at least partly, be related to the central mission. Often, an organization needs to evolve its mission statement and its mission to better relate to changing times and changing needs. This being said, organizations must remember that evolving does not mean abandoning its mission (or central reason for being), but rather generally simply require some tweaking and updating.
Many individuals thrust into leadership positions do not understand their organization's mission, however. This is often due to the complex and unclear way that many mission statements are written. Mission statement should be simple and basic, and clearly and concisely state the reason for being. These statements should motivate readers to action. However, another obstacle facing too large a number of organizations is the lack of properly qualified and trained leaders. Organizations that emphasize professional multi-stage, ongoing leadership training invariably get far better results than those that do not.
Real leaders always focus on the big picture, while making sure that all necessary details are properly in place, to assure the optimum chance for success.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Very Few Politicians Deserve Our Vote
In every election cycle, a minority of voters are truly excited about either a specific candidate or position, and the vast majority are disillusioned. In the past, mobilizing issues have included support or opposition to a war (for example, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), the economy, employment, or some specific "hot button" issue. Generally, candidates and parties that are out of power blame the incumbents for all the ills and problems, while incumbents try to demonstrate why they have acted how they have, its success or potential, the alternatives, etc. Most election campaigns in recent years have deteriorated into a name-calling, blaming, anti- something campaign, with the rhetoric far outpacing the actual ideas.
It really doesn't matter if the politician is a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Independent or Tea Party. Unfortunately, most politicians will say almost anything to get elect, distort or only partially explain their position, state the opponent's position in the poorest of lights, employ scare tactics, etc. Rarely do these politicians propose real alternatives, instead complaining about what's wrong, while rarely saying how they would fix it. Even when most of these candidates state a "plan," it is generally either incomplete or unworkable, or has little chance of getting voted into law. It is always easier to complain about something than to fix it.
The late Senator Charles Goodell said, "Politicians are like antelopes. When things get touch, they paint their behinds white, and run with the herd." Senator Goodell discovered in his two years in the United States Senate, where he proposed and sponsored more legislation and major legislation than most senators do in twenty years, that simply working hard and doing the right thing, does not get you elected. Elections have deteriorated into hype and popularity, rarely discussing anything of consequence. Candidates make many promises, most of them empty. Unfortunately, the vast majority of candidates who are elected, continue to behave as candidates, when they should morph into statesmen.
Many of candidate Obama's most ardent and fervent supporters have become disillusioned that President Obama has not met their lofty expectations. Several years ago, many of the Independent candidate Ross Perot merely supported Perot as some sort of protest. Similarly, one must wonder how supporters and members of the Tea Party will react and feel when their candidates are simply more of the same, and they don't keep their promises, either. It is easy, and generally popular, to blame incumbents during bad economic times, and it is almost always popular to oppose any type of taxes. Yet, as New York Governor Patterson has discovered, in attempting to balance the New York State budget (an almost impossible task during these economic times) that every time he recommended cutting funds to anything, whether State support to education, funding roads, subsidizing hospitals, etc., that some group or groups steadfastly opposed these cuts. Many of us suffer from "NIMBY" (not in my backyard), and while we speak loudly and protest deficits and taxes, we do not have viable alternatives or solutions.
It is almost humorous, if it wasn't so pitiful, that we keep hearing about the apathy of the American voter. However, maybe, if our politicians stopped their partisan bickering, stopped electioneering, and stopped party politics, and acted more like statesmen, and did what was both necessary and right, people would feel that their vote mattered. Until that occurs, our political system will continue to simply be a club, and a club for the increasingly wealthy.
It really doesn't matter if the politician is a Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Liberal, Independent or Tea Party. Unfortunately, most politicians will say almost anything to get elect, distort or only partially explain their position, state the opponent's position in the poorest of lights, employ scare tactics, etc. Rarely do these politicians propose real alternatives, instead complaining about what's wrong, while rarely saying how they would fix it. Even when most of these candidates state a "plan," it is generally either incomplete or unworkable, or has little chance of getting voted into law. It is always easier to complain about something than to fix it.
The late Senator Charles Goodell said, "Politicians are like antelopes. When things get touch, they paint their behinds white, and run with the herd." Senator Goodell discovered in his two years in the United States Senate, where he proposed and sponsored more legislation and major legislation than most senators do in twenty years, that simply working hard and doing the right thing, does not get you elected. Elections have deteriorated into hype and popularity, rarely discussing anything of consequence. Candidates make many promises, most of them empty. Unfortunately, the vast majority of candidates who are elected, continue to behave as candidates, when they should morph into statesmen.
Many of candidate Obama's most ardent and fervent supporters have become disillusioned that President Obama has not met their lofty expectations. Several years ago, many of the Independent candidate Ross Perot merely supported Perot as some sort of protest. Similarly, one must wonder how supporters and members of the Tea Party will react and feel when their candidates are simply more of the same, and they don't keep their promises, either. It is easy, and generally popular, to blame incumbents during bad economic times, and it is almost always popular to oppose any type of taxes. Yet, as New York Governor Patterson has discovered, in attempting to balance the New York State budget (an almost impossible task during these economic times) that every time he recommended cutting funds to anything, whether State support to education, funding roads, subsidizing hospitals, etc., that some group or groups steadfastly opposed these cuts. Many of us suffer from "NIMBY" (not in my backyard), and while we speak loudly and protest deficits and taxes, we do not have viable alternatives or solutions.
It is almost humorous, if it wasn't so pitiful, that we keep hearing about the apathy of the American voter. However, maybe, if our politicians stopped their partisan bickering, stopped electioneering, and stopped party politics, and acted more like statesmen, and did what was both necessary and right, people would feel that their vote mattered. Until that occurs, our political system will continue to simply be a club, and a club for the increasingly wealthy.
If All Else Fails, Make A Suggestion
You've attempted everything you know to convince someone. You have utilized and employed every technique and methodology to try to make your point in a convincing, winning way. You have used the "Five Steps" method of answering objections, and been effectively listening to the other party. Yet, you still are unable to "close the deal." What should you do next?
The typical reaction is that most individuals simply give up their efforts, figuring that they have done everything they could, and still not succeeded. However, in most cases, they probably have not. When you've tried everything you know, and retried in the proper manner, and still do not get the reaction you are looking for, and desire, yet you are convinced that your point is well considered, thought out, and the correct approach, there still is one additional technique to employ. At this stage, you should simply say, "May I make a suggestion?" Once you say that, it is essential that you stop speaking.
While many individuals find it relatively simple to decline an offer, or at the very least, either procrastinate, delay, or stall, almost no one will respond negatively when you ask that question. However, this technique will only be effective if you steadfastly obey the "ZTL" method. "ZTL," or "zip the lip" means that you say nothing until the other individual responds. The basic rule of this philosophy is that whoever speaks first after a question, loses this part of the "game."
Once you get an affirmative response to, "May I make a suggestion?" which you will, even if the other party doesn't want you to, is that you must take advantage of the opportunity. The best method is to begin to ask probing questions, like, "I am a little confused because most people I've explained this to decide to pursue it further. What exactly is it about this idea that keeps you from acting?"
Once you say that, once again employ "ZTL" and wait for an answer. Listen intently, and respond to the individuals concerns. Often a stumbling block is that people tell you that "I want to think about it," which really, in most cases, is little more than either a delaying tactic, or a pleasant way to say no. Answer each and every question and concern concisely and precisely, in a calm and patient manner. It is important to eventually re-close on an action regarding the concept or idea. In my three decades of training, I have witnessed some fabulous presentations that did not achieve the desired result simply because the presenter did not close and re-close. Your final suggestion is the "sample order" approach, recommending an individual try something in a very limited manner for a specific period, and if it is not everything you say, then terminating the relationship. You must, however, always be open and honest in your presentation, or you will never have a satisfactory relationship in this situation.
The typical reaction is that most individuals simply give up their efforts, figuring that they have done everything they could, and still not succeeded. However, in most cases, they probably have not. When you've tried everything you know, and retried in the proper manner, and still do not get the reaction you are looking for, and desire, yet you are convinced that your point is well considered, thought out, and the correct approach, there still is one additional technique to employ. At this stage, you should simply say, "May I make a suggestion?" Once you say that, it is essential that you stop speaking.
While many individuals find it relatively simple to decline an offer, or at the very least, either procrastinate, delay, or stall, almost no one will respond negatively when you ask that question. However, this technique will only be effective if you steadfastly obey the "ZTL" method. "ZTL," or "zip the lip" means that you say nothing until the other individual responds. The basic rule of this philosophy is that whoever speaks first after a question, loses this part of the "game."
Once you get an affirmative response to, "May I make a suggestion?" which you will, even if the other party doesn't want you to, is that you must take advantage of the opportunity. The best method is to begin to ask probing questions, like, "I am a little confused because most people I've explained this to decide to pursue it further. What exactly is it about this idea that keeps you from acting?"
Once you say that, once again employ "ZTL" and wait for an answer. Listen intently, and respond to the individuals concerns. Often a stumbling block is that people tell you that "I want to think about it," which really, in most cases, is little more than either a delaying tactic, or a pleasant way to say no. Answer each and every question and concern concisely and precisely, in a calm and patient manner. It is important to eventually re-close on an action regarding the concept or idea. In my three decades of training, I have witnessed some fabulous presentations that did not achieve the desired result simply because the presenter did not close and re-close. Your final suggestion is the "sample order" approach, recommending an individual try something in a very limited manner for a specific period, and if it is not everything you say, then terminating the relationship. You must, however, always be open and honest in your presentation, or you will never have a satisfactory relationship in this situation.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Win- Win Negotiating Is The Best Way!
Many untrained individuals fail to realize that negotiations is a "people and relations" technique, and not a "force the other person" concept. People who enter into a negotiation simply wanting to get the most he can, without considering the needs of the other side, almost never gets an optimum result. Trained negotiators realize that it takes "give and take," and learning the needs of the other side.
An effective negotiator always does his homework about both the overall industry that the negotiation is related to, as well as the specific needs of the party that he is having his discussion with. There is an extremely delicate balance in negotiations, as well. Ask too little and one may be giving up important concessions, which may cost his side lots of money. On the other hand, ask too much, and there are a few possible scenarios. One possibility is that your "opponent" may become frustrated, or feel that you are not negotiating in good faith, or that you cannot possibly be pleased or satisfied, or that if he accepts your terms, it is not profitable and/ or worthwhile to his side. In that scenario, negotiations may break down, or be discontinued completely. Another possibility is that the other side, because of economic pressures or miscalculation, gives in to your "unworkable demands." While the latter may appear great to the negotiating novice, this second scenario is often disastrous because when "push comes to shove," the other side realizes it must "cut corners," and you end up with an inferior result.
In three decades of negotiating, I have found that the most effective technique is to be as honest as possible with your opponent from the beginning of the negotiation. Do not "spring" something on them! An effective negotiator always knows as much as possible about what the other side is capable of doing, what the margins may be, in which areas they may be more flexible, etc. An effective negotiator also realizes that, while nearly everything is negotiable, certain items are far more negotiable than others.
Effective negotiators also understand that the opposition also needs to "win," or the negotiation will not work, in the long run. An understanding of areas that may save the other side money, which might be able to be passed along, is an essential ingredient.
Organizations that want to get the best results in their efforts enter a negotiation by setting their priorities. Which of the items are the most important? What parts might be used as trade offs, if necessary? An organization must have its negotiator enter the process understanding what the budget for the needed service is, and permit a professional negotiator to have a certain amount of flexibility and leeway within preset parameters.
Win-win negotiations are the way to go! When both sides walk away satisfied, feeling they received a "good deal" while getting what they needed, and both sides feel they have benefited, the process has the best results. Negotiating should always be done by fewer, not more individuals. When non-professionals get involved in a negotiation, they often mess up the works.
An effective negotiator always does his homework about both the overall industry that the negotiation is related to, as well as the specific needs of the party that he is having his discussion with. There is an extremely delicate balance in negotiations, as well. Ask too little and one may be giving up important concessions, which may cost his side lots of money. On the other hand, ask too much, and there are a few possible scenarios. One possibility is that your "opponent" may become frustrated, or feel that you are not negotiating in good faith, or that you cannot possibly be pleased or satisfied, or that if he accepts your terms, it is not profitable and/ or worthwhile to his side. In that scenario, negotiations may break down, or be discontinued completely. Another possibility is that the other side, because of economic pressures or miscalculation, gives in to your "unworkable demands." While the latter may appear great to the negotiating novice, this second scenario is often disastrous because when "push comes to shove," the other side realizes it must "cut corners," and you end up with an inferior result.
In three decades of negotiating, I have found that the most effective technique is to be as honest as possible with your opponent from the beginning of the negotiation. Do not "spring" something on them! An effective negotiator always knows as much as possible about what the other side is capable of doing, what the margins may be, in which areas they may be more flexible, etc. An effective negotiator also realizes that, while nearly everything is negotiable, certain items are far more negotiable than others.
Effective negotiators also understand that the opposition also needs to "win," or the negotiation will not work, in the long run. An understanding of areas that may save the other side money, which might be able to be passed along, is an essential ingredient.
Organizations that want to get the best results in their efforts enter a negotiation by setting their priorities. Which of the items are the most important? What parts might be used as trade offs, if necessary? An organization must have its negotiator enter the process understanding what the budget for the needed service is, and permit a professional negotiator to have a certain amount of flexibility and leeway within preset parameters.
Win-win negotiations are the way to go! When both sides walk away satisfied, feeling they received a "good deal" while getting what they needed, and both sides feel they have benefited, the process has the best results. Negotiating should always be done by fewer, not more individuals. When non-professionals get involved in a negotiation, they often mess up the works.
Monday, September 27, 2010
You Are What You Think!
Many years ago, I began my research into, which then created my strong belief in, the power of positive thinking. This motivational point of view has led me to advise businesses and organizations, train management, teach the art and science of marketing and sales, as well as embarking on a career giving seminars on motivational thinking topics. Before I was a believer, a speaker said that "You are what you think," and at the time, I kidded that I must therefore be either a woman or a sports hero, because that's what I predominantly thought about at the time.
However, there is no greater truism than the incredible power of the mind determing our actions and successes. When an individual does not believe in himself, almost invariable that person does not succeed. They often are so busy visualizing the reasons why they cannot do something that they often do not put forth enough effort to be successful. "Mind power" is not solely an expression, but the mind often determines one success or failure. I have witnessed innumerable examples of two equally talented, intelligent, and trained individuals, who end up with far different results in terms of success or failure. The vast majority of the time the successful person is the one that visualizes success and believes he can success, while the less successful individual foresees numerous "problems" and reasons why it can't be done.
It is important to understand that while some people always have reasons why it can't be done, others come up with ways to get it done. While positive individuals see obstacles, negative individuals see problems. Clearly, problems are not fun, and we often try to avoid problems, while obstacles bring an image of something that may be somewhat difficult, but can be done, and is a challenge (instead of a problem). Great golfers, for example, see difficult shots as challenging, and often make shots that we 'duffers" consider incredible! The rest of us "duffers" often see these difficult shots as impossible, and our results are generally also less than stellar.
Positive attitudes and motivations tend to create an individual who learns from both his strengths and weaknesses, addressing those weaknesses in a constructive manner, and utilizing the strengths to ones advantage. An individual's "self talk" can either be constructive or destructive, and the most successful individuals motivate themselves to believe they can achieve.
Our perceptions often lead us to conceive of something in a particular way. Once we believe and conceive in a positive manner, our probability of achievement is maximized. It is essential that each of us give ourselves the best opportunity to succeed.
However, there is no greater truism than the incredible power of the mind determing our actions and successes. When an individual does not believe in himself, almost invariable that person does not succeed. They often are so busy visualizing the reasons why they cannot do something that they often do not put forth enough effort to be successful. "Mind power" is not solely an expression, but the mind often determines one success or failure. I have witnessed innumerable examples of two equally talented, intelligent, and trained individuals, who end up with far different results in terms of success or failure. The vast majority of the time the successful person is the one that visualizes success and believes he can success, while the less successful individual foresees numerous "problems" and reasons why it can't be done.
It is important to understand that while some people always have reasons why it can't be done, others come up with ways to get it done. While positive individuals see obstacles, negative individuals see problems. Clearly, problems are not fun, and we often try to avoid problems, while obstacles bring an image of something that may be somewhat difficult, but can be done, and is a challenge (instead of a problem). Great golfers, for example, see difficult shots as challenging, and often make shots that we 'duffers" consider incredible! The rest of us "duffers" often see these difficult shots as impossible, and our results are generally also less than stellar.
Positive attitudes and motivations tend to create an individual who learns from both his strengths and weaknesses, addressing those weaknesses in a constructive manner, and utilizing the strengths to ones advantage. An individual's "self talk" can either be constructive or destructive, and the most successful individuals motivate themselves to believe they can achieve.
Our perceptions often lead us to conceive of something in a particular way. Once we believe and conceive in a positive manner, our probability of achievement is maximized. It is essential that each of us give ourselves the best opportunity to succeed.
Leaders Can't Please Everyone
An interesting feature about human nature is that most individuals want to be liked, and if not liked, at least avoid most confrontations. However, when organizational leaders transfer that trait with them to their leadership role, it often causes or creates inefficiencies, at best, or breakdowns in a worse scenario.
In three decades of working with not-for-profits and organizations, I have observed that a large percentage of leaders, however, act as if they wish to please everyone. This often causes procrastinating, indecision, or conflicted decisions, where decisive and/ or swift action or activities might be called for. I have observed fat too many individuals in leadership positions whose "own decision" is based on the last thing they may have heard from someone. Too many organizational leaders initially determine a course of action, only to digress because they "did not wish to offend" someone. Unfortunately, a reality of effective leadership is that whenever any decision is made that is at all meaningful, and will bring forth some sort of change, there will always be supporters or proponents, as well as naysayers or opponents. Too many ineffective leaders end up getting bogged down in wishing to please everyone that it nearly paralyzes any type of effective action.
Effective leaders realize that leadership demands making decisions, and making decisions often creates an opportunity for critics. An interesting attribute of many of these critics, however, is that while they have no difficulty being critical, they rarely offer alternatives that might remedy what needs to be addressed. It is also somewhat interesting to note that many of the harshest critics are also the most thin- skinned, when one disagrees or opposes them.
Leaders must understand the decision making process, become proficient in it, be confident in their research and understanding of the issues, weigh all ramifications, put a price tag on either action or not acting (in terms of money as well as time and personnel), create a goal, then create a plan, then make the plan into an action plan,place a timeline on it, and proceed. A leaders understands and accepts criticism, yet if he followed the proper process in making his decision, should be confident in his position.
Leaders must also understand "opportunity costs." "Opportunity costs" are what the present course of action might be costing the organization in terms of lost opportunities, either in terms of appealing to donors, attracting and maintaining members, or advancing the organization's mission. Organizations must continuously evolve to not only survive, but to ensure they keep their mission viable. Leaders who spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about pleasing everyone take away from the opportunities to get things accomplished!
In three decades of working with not-for-profits and organizations, I have observed that a large percentage of leaders, however, act as if they wish to please everyone. This often causes procrastinating, indecision, or conflicted decisions, where decisive and/ or swift action or activities might be called for. I have observed fat too many individuals in leadership positions whose "own decision" is based on the last thing they may have heard from someone. Too many organizational leaders initially determine a course of action, only to digress because they "did not wish to offend" someone. Unfortunately, a reality of effective leadership is that whenever any decision is made that is at all meaningful, and will bring forth some sort of change, there will always be supporters or proponents, as well as naysayers or opponents. Too many ineffective leaders end up getting bogged down in wishing to please everyone that it nearly paralyzes any type of effective action.
Effective leaders realize that leadership demands making decisions, and making decisions often creates an opportunity for critics. An interesting attribute of many of these critics, however, is that while they have no difficulty being critical, they rarely offer alternatives that might remedy what needs to be addressed. It is also somewhat interesting to note that many of the harshest critics are also the most thin- skinned, when one disagrees or opposes them.
Leaders must understand the decision making process, become proficient in it, be confident in their research and understanding of the issues, weigh all ramifications, put a price tag on either action or not acting (in terms of money as well as time and personnel), create a goal, then create a plan, then make the plan into an action plan,place a timeline on it, and proceed. A leaders understands and accepts criticism, yet if he followed the proper process in making his decision, should be confident in his position.
Leaders must also understand "opportunity costs." "Opportunity costs" are what the present course of action might be costing the organization in terms of lost opportunities, either in terms of appealing to donors, attracting and maintaining members, or advancing the organization's mission. Organizations must continuously evolve to not only survive, but to ensure they keep their mission viable. Leaders who spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about pleasing everyone take away from the opportunities to get things accomplished!
Friday, September 24, 2010
Golf- Why We Love It, Why We Hate It, & Why We Come Back For More
Golf may be the only activity that one does that we enjoy, even though it is perhaps the most frustrating sport. To the casual onlooker, golf may appear to be a simple game. After all, the ball doesn't move, we hit the first shot every hole off a tee, and if one hits the ball as he should, the results are there for the asking. Unfortunately, however, the very things that make golf look so simple to the casual observer make it so frustrating to the occasional golfer. The fact that the ball does not move and we are hitting a stationary object should logically make it basic and simple to master, yet anyone who has ever gone out on a golf course realizes that it is not quite so easy.
Golf becomes even more frustrating because even the least talented golfer occasionally hits a good shot. Logically, if one can hit a shot well, he should be able to consistently hit reasonably good shots. However, actual results are not nearly so consistent and predictable, and many golfers will hit a miserable shot immediately after hitting a terrific one.
Golfers are often instructed to practice their strokes, keep their head down, turn, grip the club properly, and then, to relax. Golf instructors tell their students to either use a one plane or a two plane swing, as if the typical student actually understands the concept.
Many individuals go to a driving range and hit the ball consistently and well, and then go onto the course, and the results are dramatically less impressive. Many people have fabulous practice swings, but then when they actually take the shot, the swing is not so fabulous.
I am a typical unimpressive occasional golfer. I have taken lessons, and frustrated my golf professional. At least, I sometimes made his day, by being comical relief! My instructor has often said that "the golf ball is one of the two biggest impediments to a good swing." The other, of course, is that golf is a "head" game. If one thinks too much, and tries too hard, results suffer. If one doesn't concentrate, results suffer. I suppose ideally, the ideal situation would be somewhere in between.
So, why do I and so many other occasional golfers keep going back to the course for more punishment? Golfers have attuned themselves to remember the occasional good shot, or good round, or to really remember the occasional great shot, or terrific round? Indeed, golf is a very delicate balance between proper form and controlling one's emotions. It is often a therapeutic form of forced modesty. Golf permits individuals of various skill levels, physical attributes, ages, sexes, and abilities to enjoy themselves in the great outdoors, in what, other than the stress many of us force on ourselves, in a beautiful, pristine outdoor setting.
I recommend golf for anyone that wants to enjoy himself, yet doesn't mind, at times embarrassing himself, and being frustrated. That is probably why so many of us "duffers" keep coming back for more!
Golf becomes even more frustrating because even the least talented golfer occasionally hits a good shot. Logically, if one can hit a shot well, he should be able to consistently hit reasonably good shots. However, actual results are not nearly so consistent and predictable, and many golfers will hit a miserable shot immediately after hitting a terrific one.
Golfers are often instructed to practice their strokes, keep their head down, turn, grip the club properly, and then, to relax. Golf instructors tell their students to either use a one plane or a two plane swing, as if the typical student actually understands the concept.
Many individuals go to a driving range and hit the ball consistently and well, and then go onto the course, and the results are dramatically less impressive. Many people have fabulous practice swings, but then when they actually take the shot, the swing is not so fabulous.
I am a typical unimpressive occasional golfer. I have taken lessons, and frustrated my golf professional. At least, I sometimes made his day, by being comical relief! My instructor has often said that "the golf ball is one of the two biggest impediments to a good swing." The other, of course, is that golf is a "head" game. If one thinks too much, and tries too hard, results suffer. If one doesn't concentrate, results suffer. I suppose ideally, the ideal situation would be somewhere in between.
So, why do I and so many other occasional golfers keep going back to the course for more punishment? Golfers have attuned themselves to remember the occasional good shot, or good round, or to really remember the occasional great shot, or terrific round? Indeed, golf is a very delicate balance between proper form and controlling one's emotions. It is often a therapeutic form of forced modesty. Golf permits individuals of various skill levels, physical attributes, ages, sexes, and abilities to enjoy themselves in the great outdoors, in what, other than the stress many of us force on ourselves, in a beautiful, pristine outdoor setting.
I recommend golf for anyone that wants to enjoy himself, yet doesn't mind, at times embarrassing himself, and being frustrated. That is probably why so many of us "duffers" keep coming back for more!
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Leaders Always Stand For Something
One of the principle differences between a true leader, and an individual merely holding a leadership position, is that true leaders always stand for something. A true leader understands that the burdens and responsibilities of leadership include putting the best interests of their organization first. They also realize that it is more important to do the right thing, than to try to do the popular thing!
Many individuals in leadership positions seem to try to substitute rhetoric and oration, for action and planning. While being a decent orator is certainly an advantage to a leader, being an excellent planner is far more essential. I have witnessed some great speakers that were horrible and ineffective "leaders," while also witnessing true leaders who were only average speakers, but were great planners.
Effective leadership means having a vision when one assumes a leadership position, and converting that vision to a plan. Before it can become a plan, anything important requires study and understanding, as well as considerable research, before making a well-considered, well thought-out decision as to a course of action. A true leader has a reason that he wants to lead, not just that he was asked to, or that "the organization needed me." It is abundantly clear that organizations never need anyone in a leadership position that cannot clearly state his reason for wanting to lead. True leaders always stand for something!
Effective leadership requires thought and a purpose. Once this purpose is examined, and is deemed worthwhile to pursue, an action plan must be created. However, merely creating a plan of action without implementing it, is a meaningless exercise.
Leaders have a clear-cut sense of direction, which guides them in their deliberations, considerations, actions taken, and judgments. This is the only way that effective and well-considered decision making can be arrived at. Without a method to make a judgment, it is nearly impossible to truly lead!
Most importantly, true leaders motivate others, not by words and empty rhetoric and platitudes, nor by repeating cliches and popular slogans, nor by simply complaining about what is wrong. A true leader may object to a current course of action, but not until he considers alternatives, and comes up with a better plan. Effective leaders will motivate other people by what they do, and their actions, rather than their words.
I remember marveling at why the employees of one restaurant seemed to have such a far better attitude than the competition, and were willing to work harder and do more, without complaining. I observed, however, that the first restaurant's owners were hands-on workers, working hard and long hours, and never asking anything of an employee that they would not do themselves. The owners of the first restaurant would bring over water to tables, if necessary, and clear tables, when the restaurant was busy. The competition, on the other hand, sat behind the cash register and "ordered" employees around. The first owner kept smiling and being friendly, regardless of the difficulties, while the other owner was rarely warm. Is it any wonder that these employees reacted differently? It is the same thing
Organizational leadership is the same way. Members and donors can generally eventually read through the empty rhetoric, while appreciating true dedication. If a leader wants to motivate, and to truly lead, he must lead by example.
Many individuals in leadership positions seem to try to substitute rhetoric and oration, for action and planning. While being a decent orator is certainly an advantage to a leader, being an excellent planner is far more essential. I have witnessed some great speakers that were horrible and ineffective "leaders," while also witnessing true leaders who were only average speakers, but were great planners.
Effective leadership means having a vision when one assumes a leadership position, and converting that vision to a plan. Before it can become a plan, anything important requires study and understanding, as well as considerable research, before making a well-considered, well thought-out decision as to a course of action. A true leader has a reason that he wants to lead, not just that he was asked to, or that "the organization needed me." It is abundantly clear that organizations never need anyone in a leadership position that cannot clearly state his reason for wanting to lead. True leaders always stand for something!
Effective leadership requires thought and a purpose. Once this purpose is examined, and is deemed worthwhile to pursue, an action plan must be created. However, merely creating a plan of action without implementing it, is a meaningless exercise.
Leaders have a clear-cut sense of direction, which guides them in their deliberations, considerations, actions taken, and judgments. This is the only way that effective and well-considered decision making can be arrived at. Without a method to make a judgment, it is nearly impossible to truly lead!
Most importantly, true leaders motivate others, not by words and empty rhetoric and platitudes, nor by repeating cliches and popular slogans, nor by simply complaining about what is wrong. A true leader may object to a current course of action, but not until he considers alternatives, and comes up with a better plan. Effective leaders will motivate other people by what they do, and their actions, rather than their words.
I remember marveling at why the employees of one restaurant seemed to have such a far better attitude than the competition, and were willing to work harder and do more, without complaining. I observed, however, that the first restaurant's owners were hands-on workers, working hard and long hours, and never asking anything of an employee that they would not do themselves. The owners of the first restaurant would bring over water to tables, if necessary, and clear tables, when the restaurant was busy. The competition, on the other hand, sat behind the cash register and "ordered" employees around. The first owner kept smiling and being friendly, regardless of the difficulties, while the other owner was rarely warm. Is it any wonder that these employees reacted differently? It is the same thing
Organizational leadership is the same way. Members and donors can generally eventually read through the empty rhetoric, while appreciating true dedication. If a leader wants to motivate, and to truly lead, he must lead by example.
Why Is A Mission Statement Important?
Many organizations seem to treat their mission statement the same way they treat their budgets - - as solely an exercise, without giving much thought to its significance. In my three decades of involvement with organizations, I have continuously been dismayed by both the way organizations prepare and treat their budgets, and how little thought they give to their Mission Statement.
What is a Mission Statement? Ideally, a Mission Statement should briefly, clearly and concisely state the organization's case, or in other words, the organization's reason for being. Many organizations prepare long and tedious copy which they call their Mission Statement, but which in actuality, is more their "biographical sketch." A Mission Statement should be more like a sound byte. That means that a Mission Statement should be so clear and compelling that an individual can use it, even at a cocktail party or other event, when asked what their organization is all about. The Mission Statement should clearly indicate to potential donors what the organization does and why it is important, and to members and potential members, why it is important and relevant to both belong and get involved more actively.
Mission Statements must be calls to action, eliciting a response from readers. I have seen not-for-profit food bank- type organizations simply state that their mission was to feed the areas hungry and under-served. That type of wording clearly indicates to any reader what the organization does, why it does it, and should elicit a proactive response.
On the other hands, some organizations use wording that is so lengthy that most readers will not even read to the end, and if they do, most would lose interest. I have witnessed organizations that have used multiple paragraphs to describe what their purpose and reason for being was.
It is essential that not-for-profit organizations realize and understand that they compete for potential members and donors attention. The group that tells its story in the most interesting, clear-cut, distinct, and motivating way, will generally attract more involvement, both in terms of people-power, and financial support.
I have witnessed countless organizations that state that they cannot or will not shorten their descriptions, only to witness their leaders and members fail to be able to answer briefly, in a social situation, why someone should either stay involved, become involved, or financially support the cause. Part of any organizations leadership training should be creating a sound byte Mission Statement.
What is a Mission Statement? Ideally, a Mission Statement should briefly, clearly and concisely state the organization's case, or in other words, the organization's reason for being. Many organizations prepare long and tedious copy which they call their Mission Statement, but which in actuality, is more their "biographical sketch." A Mission Statement should be more like a sound byte. That means that a Mission Statement should be so clear and compelling that an individual can use it, even at a cocktail party or other event, when asked what their organization is all about. The Mission Statement should clearly indicate to potential donors what the organization does and why it is important, and to members and potential members, why it is important and relevant to both belong and get involved more actively.
Mission Statements must be calls to action, eliciting a response from readers. I have seen not-for-profit food bank- type organizations simply state that their mission was to feed the areas hungry and under-served. That type of wording clearly indicates to any reader what the organization does, why it does it, and should elicit a proactive response.
On the other hands, some organizations use wording that is so lengthy that most readers will not even read to the end, and if they do, most would lose interest. I have witnessed organizations that have used multiple paragraphs to describe what their purpose and reason for being was.
It is essential that not-for-profit organizations realize and understand that they compete for potential members and donors attention. The group that tells its story in the most interesting, clear-cut, distinct, and motivating way, will generally attract more involvement, both in terms of people-power, and financial support.
I have witnessed countless organizations that state that they cannot or will not shorten their descriptions, only to witness their leaders and members fail to be able to answer briefly, in a social situation, why someone should either stay involved, become involved, or financially support the cause. Part of any organizations leadership training should be creating a sound byte Mission Statement.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Importance of Properly Designing and Using an Agenda
Most chairpersons either pre-distribute, or at least have available at their meeting, an agenda for meeting participants to review and follow. Unfortunately, however, many chairpersons either do not fully understand how agendas can be used effectively, or simply create "boilerplate- type" agendas, listing items extremely broadly. Further compounding this situation, many chairs do not strictly follow their agendas, making their agenda even less significant.
A well formulated agenda can accomplish a lot towards assuring a meaningful, and hopefully, successful meeting. The agenda should always be distributed far enough in advance, so that participants have the opportunity to review it, and formulate their ideas. Meeting chairs should avoid having committee reports simply read at meetings, by having these written reports distributed along with the agenda, and giving attendees the opportunity to read, review, and formulate questions regarding this report. Part of the agenda should therefore permit an opportunity to question the heads of committees regarding any item that might require clarification. These reports should then be included in the minutes of the meeting.
The individual overseeing a meeting should create an effective agenda, and then stick to it. Opportunities for other topics to be discussed should be allowed for, but should be after the agenda items, during the New Business part of the proceedings. Leaders must stay "on track," and be vigilant to not permit others to digress off topic. One of the most important reasons that Parliamentary Procedure should be used and understood is to assure that meetings run efficiently and effectively. Effective procedures permits orderly discussions, and when meetings are conducted in a procedurally orderly manner, invariably, they are more effective.
Meeting participants should also leave a meeting feeling the meeting accomplished its purpose. How often have you attended a meeting where you left feeling your time was wasted, etc? Using these techniques also assures that anyone who wishes to, has an opportunity to speak and voice his opinion. How often have you left a meeting bothered by the fact that an individual or two dominated the conversation?
No meeting can be considered effective unless agenda items are fully discussed, and an action plan, or to-do list was created. Everyone should know who is responsible for what, what the expectations are, what the costs (if any) are, and the timeline. How often have you attended an organization's meetings, and felt like the same discussion occurred every time?
It is essential that the agenda, the reports and the minutes of the meeting are preserved and maintained for a prolonged period of time, and that they be referred to in the future. When a proposal is made, and approved, there must be a follow up, and an awareness of what will happen next.
The only way that organizations can assure that their meetings are meaningful is to emphasize leadership training, to assure it leaders understand the necessities of leadership. Without that emphasis, even the most well-intentioned organization and/ or leader, diminishes its chances for optimum success and accomplishments.
A well formulated agenda can accomplish a lot towards assuring a meaningful, and hopefully, successful meeting. The agenda should always be distributed far enough in advance, so that participants have the opportunity to review it, and formulate their ideas. Meeting chairs should avoid having committee reports simply read at meetings, by having these written reports distributed along with the agenda, and giving attendees the opportunity to read, review, and formulate questions regarding this report. Part of the agenda should therefore permit an opportunity to question the heads of committees regarding any item that might require clarification. These reports should then be included in the minutes of the meeting.
The individual overseeing a meeting should create an effective agenda, and then stick to it. Opportunities for other topics to be discussed should be allowed for, but should be after the agenda items, during the New Business part of the proceedings. Leaders must stay "on track," and be vigilant to not permit others to digress off topic. One of the most important reasons that Parliamentary Procedure should be used and understood is to assure that meetings run efficiently and effectively. Effective procedures permits orderly discussions, and when meetings are conducted in a procedurally orderly manner, invariably, they are more effective.
Meeting participants should also leave a meeting feeling the meeting accomplished its purpose. How often have you attended a meeting where you left feeling your time was wasted, etc? Using these techniques also assures that anyone who wishes to, has an opportunity to speak and voice his opinion. How often have you left a meeting bothered by the fact that an individual or two dominated the conversation?
No meeting can be considered effective unless agenda items are fully discussed, and an action plan, or to-do list was created. Everyone should know who is responsible for what, what the expectations are, what the costs (if any) are, and the timeline. How often have you attended an organization's meetings, and felt like the same discussion occurred every time?
It is essential that the agenda, the reports and the minutes of the meeting are preserved and maintained for a prolonged period of time, and that they be referred to in the future. When a proposal is made, and approved, there must be a follow up, and an awareness of what will happen next.
The only way that organizations can assure that their meetings are meaningful is to emphasize leadership training, to assure it leaders understand the necessities of leadership. Without that emphasis, even the most well-intentioned organization and/ or leader, diminishes its chances for optimum success and accomplishments.
Organizations Need To Use More Personal Touch
In our ever evolving society, we have become more and more technologically dependent. While this has created numerous advantages, it has also, in many cases, created an over-dependence on technology on a widespread basis.
Since most organizations unfortunately do not adequately train its leaders, many individuals in leadership positions have nearly exclusively communicated via e-mail, social media, e-blasts, texting, Web sites, etc. This has often created a void in effective communication, as well as alienating a certain percentage of members.
It is obvious that it is simpler and generally quicker for a leader to send out an e-mail than to personally contact members. In addition, it is often impractical to reach out personally to a large number of members, either in person or by telephone. Since I have been involved in organizations for three decades, I have observed a greater and greater dependence on digital communication, and far less "personal touch."
Unfortunately, statistics consistently indicate that e-mail, while reaching many people, is the least memorable to many. In addition, many e-mails automatically go into recipients spam, and therefore are often overlooked, ignored or deleted. In fact, of all types of communication, only e-blasts are more ineffective than e-mails, especially in terms of bring forth action or commitment. The next poorest form of communication is texting, but it is at least looked at more broadly than the other forms just mentioned. Traditional or "snail" mail is somewhat more effective, but much more effective when used as a postcard than as a letter, assuming that both are professionally and effectively designed to deliver the message.
Telephone calls are the second most effective, following only personal contact. However, conference calls do not have anywhere near the impact of these other forms. There is, therefore, little doubt that many people desire the "personal touch" from their organizations and its leaders. While it might take a little more effort and/or time, when leaders properly plan and divide this type of communication with other co-leaders, it is startling how much more effective the results.
There have been numerous reports of the challenges organizations face in today's environment. Most organizations have seen both their revenues and their membership drop, in many cases dramatically. The organizations that have been least impacted are those that have made it a priority to address both leadership training, as well as the significance of "personal touch" communication.
Since most organizations unfortunately do not adequately train its leaders, many individuals in leadership positions have nearly exclusively communicated via e-mail, social media, e-blasts, texting, Web sites, etc. This has often created a void in effective communication, as well as alienating a certain percentage of members.
It is obvious that it is simpler and generally quicker for a leader to send out an e-mail than to personally contact members. In addition, it is often impractical to reach out personally to a large number of members, either in person or by telephone. Since I have been involved in organizations for three decades, I have observed a greater and greater dependence on digital communication, and far less "personal touch."
Unfortunately, statistics consistently indicate that e-mail, while reaching many people, is the least memorable to many. In addition, many e-mails automatically go into recipients spam, and therefore are often overlooked, ignored or deleted. In fact, of all types of communication, only e-blasts are more ineffective than e-mails, especially in terms of bring forth action or commitment. The next poorest form of communication is texting, but it is at least looked at more broadly than the other forms just mentioned. Traditional or "snail" mail is somewhat more effective, but much more effective when used as a postcard than as a letter, assuming that both are professionally and effectively designed to deliver the message.
Telephone calls are the second most effective, following only personal contact. However, conference calls do not have anywhere near the impact of these other forms. There is, therefore, little doubt that many people desire the "personal touch" from their organizations and its leaders. While it might take a little more effort and/or time, when leaders properly plan and divide this type of communication with other co-leaders, it is startling how much more effective the results.
There have been numerous reports of the challenges organizations face in today's environment. Most organizations have seen both their revenues and their membership drop, in many cases dramatically. The organizations that have been least impacted are those that have made it a priority to address both leadership training, as well as the significance of "personal touch" communication.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Too Many on Many Conference Calls!
How many is too many participants in a conference call? The answer is not a simple one, because it depends on many factors. One of the primary factors is based on the purpose of the conference call. If the purpose is to merely impart information, the number of participants can be far greater than if it is to be discussion oriented. It can be likened to a college lecture where there is often little participation, and is given so that the leader can impart his knowledge and share some information. However, if the purpose of a conference call is to effectively discussion an issue and make some determination, conference calls are often inadequate, inefficient, and ineffective. When there are too many participants, rarely is anything concrete achieved.
Leaders of conference calls should determine what the intent of the call is, and determine if that format is a recommended one. Unfortunately, since many organization's leaders are inadequately trained, they are often incapable of competently making that determination.
In my three decades of involvement with not-for-profits and organizations, as a Founder, Board Member, Officer, staff member, Director of Development, Chief Operating Officer, adviser, and consultant, I have found that conference calls are often the most misused and overused communication vehicles. In addition, because so many organizational leaders lack adequate training, they do not "tightly" manage these calls, which can very easily get out of control. I have observed that many participants in conference calls appear not to actively participate, and have found that many of them pay limited attention to the content of the call. Even fewer of the participants offer worthwhile contributions to the call.
While there are times when conference calls are useful and helpful, they should be limited to no more than about a half dozen participants. All participants in a conference call should have direct involvement and interest in the call, "bringing something" to the conversation. Conference calls should be limited to information that must be discussed simultaneously by a group, and, as a general rule, it is a good idea to disseminate background information about the topics to be discussed prior to the call, either by e-mail or by snail mail.
Just as organizations should not over-depend on any one vehicle for communication, such as e-mail (or any other single digital media), it likewise should not over-depend on conference calls. Properly trained leaders know when conference calls are appropriate vehicles, and when they are not.
Leaders of conference calls should determine what the intent of the call is, and determine if that format is a recommended one. Unfortunately, since many organization's leaders are inadequately trained, they are often incapable of competently making that determination.
In my three decades of involvement with not-for-profits and organizations, as a Founder, Board Member, Officer, staff member, Director of Development, Chief Operating Officer, adviser, and consultant, I have found that conference calls are often the most misused and overused communication vehicles. In addition, because so many organizational leaders lack adequate training, they do not "tightly" manage these calls, which can very easily get out of control. I have observed that many participants in conference calls appear not to actively participate, and have found that many of them pay limited attention to the content of the call. Even fewer of the participants offer worthwhile contributions to the call.
While there are times when conference calls are useful and helpful, they should be limited to no more than about a half dozen participants. All participants in a conference call should have direct involvement and interest in the call, "bringing something" to the conversation. Conference calls should be limited to information that must be discussed simultaneously by a group, and, as a general rule, it is a good idea to disseminate background information about the topics to be discussed prior to the call, either by e-mail or by snail mail.
Just as organizations should not over-depend on any one vehicle for communication, such as e-mail (or any other single digital media), it likewise should not over-depend on conference calls. Properly trained leaders know when conference calls are appropriate vehicles, and when they are not.
Political Contributors Follow The Leaders
Are corporate contributions based on belief in who the best or more capable candidate might be, or on political expediency? The news media recently reported that, while for the years 2006 through 2009, the majority of corporate contributions went to Democrats, thus far in 2010, the opposite is true, with close to sixty percent of all corporate political contributions apparently going to Republican candidates, or to the Republican Party. Since much of the public is under the perception that corporate America is predominantly more conservative, and thus tends to lean Republican, during 2006 through 2009, the opposite was true. Was that a change in belief, or merely a recognition in the weakening and softening of support for President Bush and many Republican office holders? Obviously, that was the same period that there was a change in the party of the President (which many anticipated because of anti-Bush sentiment), and in 2008, both the President and both Houses of Congress swung dramatically to the Democrats.
Largely because of the continued troubling economy, the perception by many Americans that the measures taken have both not worked and been wasteful, and the weakening poll numbers of both the President and the incumbents (and since the Democrats are presently in power, there are far more Democratic incumbents), there appears to widespread belief that there will be a major realignment in the power balance between the political parties at the 2010 mid-term elections.
Of course, the Tea Party's success and popularity has made it far more difficult to predict results, and even President Carter has likened his short-term popular election in 1976 to a dissatisfaction of the American public, similar to what is intensifying the Tea Party's appeal. American politics has traditionally been cyclical, and American voters have traditionally taken out their dissatisfaction and frustration by voting "the bums out." Therefore, many political pundits are predicting a dramatic victory for the Republicans in 2010.
Is corporate money therefore following the leader? It has in the past, and it certainly appears that it is once again during this election cycle. However, the Republicans should carefully remember this caveat that their dramatic victory in 2010 could strengthen President Obama's and the Democratic Party's chances in 2012, especially if the public does not perceive noticeable and dramatic improvement.
Largely because of the continued troubling economy, the perception by many Americans that the measures taken have both not worked and been wasteful, and the weakening poll numbers of both the President and the incumbents (and since the Democrats are presently in power, there are far more Democratic incumbents), there appears to widespread belief that there will be a major realignment in the power balance between the political parties at the 2010 mid-term elections.
Of course, the Tea Party's success and popularity has made it far more difficult to predict results, and even President Carter has likened his short-term popular election in 1976 to a dissatisfaction of the American public, similar to what is intensifying the Tea Party's appeal. American politics has traditionally been cyclical, and American voters have traditionally taken out their dissatisfaction and frustration by voting "the bums out." Therefore, many political pundits are predicting a dramatic victory for the Republicans in 2010.
Is corporate money therefore following the leader? It has in the past, and it certainly appears that it is once again during this election cycle. However, the Republicans should carefully remember this caveat that their dramatic victory in 2010 could strengthen President Obama's and the Democratic Party's chances in 2012, especially if the public does not perceive noticeable and dramatic improvement.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Objections: Answering in 5 Steps
In nearly every situation, when people get into a discussion, there are bound to be certain questions or objections. How one handles the situation, and responds to objections, often determines whether one accomplishes his desired results. It is important to understand that all objections fall into two categories, either (1) technical; or (2) emotional. If the initial presentation has been properly presented, the vast majority of objections are emotional. The main technical objection is usually financial, while it takes a finer "ear" to properly understand what each emotional objection might be.
The same five steps are used in all situations. The finesse comes with being comfortable with the concept, listening, and believing in these steps. All major sales and marketing organization teaches this to some degree. The five steps are:
(1) Restate the objection--- This is essential so that you are answering the true objection, and not opening up a Pandora's Box by addressing something that is not the objector's concern. An easy way to do this is to say something like, "So you're concerned about... " (Understand the concern may be about a guarantee, reliability, time commitment, ability, etc., but it is essential that you ask, and get a response and acknowledgment from the objector). Also remember the very important "ZTL" rule - - - "zip the lip." Do not speak until the other person answers your question, and if you are not sure of the meaning of the answer, ask again until you are! The ZTL rule says that the first person to answer "loses."
(2) Empathize (Don't sympathize). This can be simply done by saying something similar to, "I can perfectly understand how you feel, in fact I felt the same way, until i realized and understood a few things..."
(3) Answer the objection-- Calmly, conversationally, fully answer the objection...
(4) Restate the proposal - - - "So in light of this information, and in light of the fact that you've told me that you... "
(5) Re-close - - - "Doesn't it make sense to...?" Then ZTL! I repeat, under no circumstances speak. You must let the other person, agree, say maybe, or give another objection. If they now give another objection, repeat the 5 steps! Keep doing this!
Then, if you believe you have done this long enough--- and after a minimum of 3 times using the 5 steps, there is one more "fall-back" position - - - Say, "May I make a suggestion?" Then, again, zip the lip. Wait-- force yourself --- it almost never occurs that someone will say NO to making a suggestion while they may say "No," eventually to the suggestion, however. It is very important that you get the other person into that "nodding--yessing" mode, because this can be a great lead in (or "trial close") to eventually overcoming the objection, and acquiring a commitment.
I want to stress that this works. I have used it hundreds and hundreds of times in numerous industries, organizations, charities, and personal situations. I have taught thousands how to effectively use these techniques. It initially takes some coaching, and then some practice, but once someone has perfected this technique, their "closing ratio" improves incredibly!
The same five steps are used in all situations. The finesse comes with being comfortable with the concept, listening, and believing in these steps. All major sales and marketing organization teaches this to some degree. The five steps are:
(1) Restate the objection--- This is essential so that you are answering the true objection, and not opening up a Pandora's Box by addressing something that is not the objector's concern. An easy way to do this is to say something like, "So you're concerned about... " (Understand the concern may be about a guarantee, reliability, time commitment, ability, etc., but it is essential that you ask, and get a response and acknowledgment from the objector). Also remember the very important "ZTL" rule - - - "zip the lip." Do not speak until the other person answers your question, and if you are not sure of the meaning of the answer, ask again until you are! The ZTL rule says that the first person to answer "loses."
(2) Empathize (Don't sympathize). This can be simply done by saying something similar to, "I can perfectly understand how you feel, in fact I felt the same way, until i realized and understood a few things..."
(3) Answer the objection-- Calmly, conversationally, fully answer the objection...
(4) Restate the proposal - - - "So in light of this information, and in light of the fact that you've told me that you... "
(5) Re-close - - - "Doesn't it make sense to...?" Then ZTL! I repeat, under no circumstances speak. You must let the other person, agree, say maybe, or give another objection. If they now give another objection, repeat the 5 steps! Keep doing this!
Then, if you believe you have done this long enough--- and after a minimum of 3 times using the 5 steps, there is one more "fall-back" position - - - Say, "May I make a suggestion?" Then, again, zip the lip. Wait-- force yourself --- it almost never occurs that someone will say NO to making a suggestion while they may say "No," eventually to the suggestion, however. It is very important that you get the other person into that "nodding--yessing" mode, because this can be a great lead in (or "trial close") to eventually overcoming the objection, and acquiring a commitment.
I want to stress that this works. I have used it hundreds and hundreds of times in numerous industries, organizations, charities, and personal situations. I have taught thousands how to effectively use these techniques. It initially takes some coaching, and then some practice, but once someone has perfected this technique, their "closing ratio" improves incredibly!
Objections- How to Answer in 5 Steps?
In nearly every situation, when people get into a discussion, there are bound to be certain questions or objections. How one handles the situation, and responds to objections, often determines whether one accomplishes his desired results. It is important to understand that all objections fall into two categories, either (1) technical; or (2) emotional. If the initial presentation has been properly presented, the vast majority of objections are emotional. The main technical objection is usually financial, while it takes a finer "ear" to properly understand what each emotional objection might be.
The same five steps are used in all situations. The finesse comes with being comfortable with the concept, listening, and believing in these steps. All major sales and marketing organization teaches this to some degree. The five steps are:
(1) Restate the objection--- This is essential so that you are answering the true objection, and not opening up a Pandora's Box by addressing something that is not the objector's concern. An easy way to do this is to say something like, "So you're concerned about... " (Understand the concern may be about a guarantee, reliability, time commitment, ability, etc., but it is essential that you ask, and get a response and acknowledgment from the objector). Also remember the very important "ZTL" rule - - - "zip the lip." Do not speak until the other person answers your question, and if you are not sure of the meaning of the answer, ask again until you are! The ZTL rule says that the first person to answer "loses."
(2) Empathize (Don't sympathize). This can be simply done by saying something similar to, "I can perfectly understand how you feel, in fact I felt the same way, until i realized and understood a few things..."
(3) Answer the objection-- Calmly, conversationally, fully answer the objection...
(4) Restate the proposal - - - "So in light of this information, and in light of the fact that you've told me that you... "
(5) Re-close - - - "Doesn't it make sense to...?" Then ZTL! I repeat, under no circumstances speak. You must let the other person, agree, say maybe, or give another objection. If they now give another objection, repeat the 5 steps! Keep doing this!
Then, if you believe you have done this long enough--- and after a minimum of 3 times using the 5 steps, there is one more "fall-back" position - - - Say, "May I make a suggestion?" Then, again, zip the lip. Wait-- force yourself --- it almost never occurs that someone will say NO to making a suggestion while they may say "No," eventually to the suggestion, however. It is very important that you get the other person into that "nodding--yessing" mode, because this can be a great lead in (or "trial close") to eventually overcoming the objection, and acquiring a commitment.
I want to stress that this works. I have used it hundreds and hundreds of times in numerous industries, organizations, charities, and personal situations. I have taught thousands how to effectively use these techniques. It initially takes some coaching, and then some practice, but once someone has perfected this technique, their "closing ratio" improves incredibly!
The same five steps are used in all situations. The finesse comes with being comfortable with the concept, listening, and believing in these steps. All major sales and marketing organization teaches this to some degree. The five steps are:
(1) Restate the objection--- This is essential so that you are answering the true objection, and not opening up a Pandora's Box by addressing something that is not the objector's concern. An easy way to do this is to say something like, "So you're concerned about... " (Understand the concern may be about a guarantee, reliability, time commitment, ability, etc., but it is essential that you ask, and get a response and acknowledgment from the objector). Also remember the very important "ZTL" rule - - - "zip the lip." Do not speak until the other person answers your question, and if you are not sure of the meaning of the answer, ask again until you are! The ZTL rule says that the first person to answer "loses."
(2) Empathize (Don't sympathize). This can be simply done by saying something similar to, "I can perfectly understand how you feel, in fact I felt the same way, until i realized and understood a few things..."
(3) Answer the objection-- Calmly, conversationally, fully answer the objection...
(4) Restate the proposal - - - "So in light of this information, and in light of the fact that you've told me that you... "
(5) Re-close - - - "Doesn't it make sense to...?" Then ZTL! I repeat, under no circumstances speak. You must let the other person, agree, say maybe, or give another objection. If they now give another objection, repeat the 5 steps! Keep doing this!
Then, if you believe you have done this long enough--- and after a minimum of 3 times using the 5 steps, there is one more "fall-back" position - - - Say, "May I make a suggestion?" Then, again, zip the lip. Wait-- force yourself --- it almost never occurs that someone will say NO to making a suggestion while they may say "No," eventually to the suggestion, however. It is very important that you get the other person into that "nodding--yessing" mode, because this can be a great lead in (or "trial close") to eventually overcoming the objection, and acquiring a commitment.
I want to stress that this works. I have used it hundreds and hundreds of times in numerous industries, organizations, charities, and personal situations. I have taught thousands how to effectively use these techniques. It initially takes some coaching, and then some practice, but once someone has perfected this technique, their "closing ratio" improves incredibly!
Tea Party Success- Worse for Democrats or Republicans?
There is little doubt that the recent support and success of the Tea Party and its candidates is to a large degree a reaction by American parties to dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, the economy, the joblessness rate, a general malaise, and our existing government and elected officials. The question that may be far more relevant, however, is, "Is the Tea Party's success more of a threat to the Democrats or the Republicans?"
There has been much spin on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the news media related to this question. Republicans state that the public's disenchantment gives them an advantage for the mid-term elections in November 2010, and that they believe they can then take control of the Congress. Some Democratic pundants, while keenly aware of the ledge they are teetering on, feel the Tea Party may actually splinter the Republican party, or give easier candidates for the Democratic candidates to run against than would the more traditional Republican party candidates. The media are also spinning this issue to support their point of view and preferences.
Traditionally, Americans tend to be relatively centrist politically. They may, for a short period, become a little more conservative or liberal, depending on certain issues, and the overall tone and mood of the electorate. However, what this means for the mid-term elections is certainly unclear. Tea Party candidates could ride an emotional wave to victory in November, but a historical perspective indicates that it will probably be short-lived.
What may even be more interesting, however, is that President Obama's chances to be re-elected may very well be enhanced for 2012 if the Republicans gain control of the Congress in 2010. In what would be perhaps the ultimate irony for Tea Party zealots, that scenario would give the President the opportunity to blame the Congress for whatever goes wrong, which he cannot do with his own party in control?
Therefore, whether the Tea Party is a short-lived fad and protest, or a long-term trend, the end result is that it will create some sort of rift within the Republican party. As the adage goes, my advice is, "Be careful what you wish for."
There has been much spin on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the news media related to this question. Republicans state that the public's disenchantment gives them an advantage for the mid-term elections in November 2010, and that they believe they can then take control of the Congress. Some Democratic pundants, while keenly aware of the ledge they are teetering on, feel the Tea Party may actually splinter the Republican party, or give easier candidates for the Democratic candidates to run against than would the more traditional Republican party candidates. The media are also spinning this issue to support their point of view and preferences.
Traditionally, Americans tend to be relatively centrist politically. They may, for a short period, become a little more conservative or liberal, depending on certain issues, and the overall tone and mood of the electorate. However, what this means for the mid-term elections is certainly unclear. Tea Party candidates could ride an emotional wave to victory in November, but a historical perspective indicates that it will probably be short-lived.
What may even be more interesting, however, is that President Obama's chances to be re-elected may very well be enhanced for 2012 if the Republicans gain control of the Congress in 2010. In what would be perhaps the ultimate irony for Tea Party zealots, that scenario would give the President the opportunity to blame the Congress for whatever goes wrong, which he cannot do with his own party in control?
Therefore, whether the Tea Party is a short-lived fad and protest, or a long-term trend, the end result is that it will create some sort of rift within the Republican party. As the adage goes, my advice is, "Be careful what you wish for."
Setting Priorities For An Organization
Leaders of organizations are constantly facing the challenge of juggling priorities. Since most organizations do not train their leaders via a professionally designed and presented training program, many leaders are ill-prepared to use the concept of prioritization in conducting their leadership responsibilities.
The first thing that organizations need to do on a fairly regular basis is examine and reexamine their missions and Mission Statements, to assure that these missions are still relevant to the organization as it has evolved. After doing that analysis, and weighing all the ramifications of either keeping the Mission Statement static or altering it to adapt to changing times, leaders must set forth a set of priorities top adhere to during their tenure in office. These priorities should include short-term,intermediate-term, and long-term programs, objectives and goals, and a financial and time analysis of each of these. Once this analysis has been performed, leaders need to rate each program, project and event, in terms of both importance, perspective and relevance.
In my three decades of working with not-for-profits and other organizations, I have unfortunately observed that prioritizing tends to be one of the most overlooked items of leadership. The vast majority of untrained leaders tend to lead either based on some emotional attachment to an idea, a poorly conceived or understood notion, or as crisis managers. While every organization faces a "crunch time" which may or may not be perceived as a crisis, well trained leaders pre-plan for contingencies, and tend to be better able to cope when some difficult event occurs. However, when leaders do not properly use priority leadership as a core concept, very often ill-prepared leaders then spend too much time on non-priority items, and inadequate time on important ones. Using priority management techniques, leaders are far more capable of avoiding getting bogged down in minutia, and continue to see and understand the big picture.
The first thing that organizations need to do on a fairly regular basis is examine and reexamine their missions and Mission Statements, to assure that these missions are still relevant to the organization as it has evolved. After doing that analysis, and weighing all the ramifications of either keeping the Mission Statement static or altering it to adapt to changing times, leaders must set forth a set of priorities top adhere to during their tenure in office. These priorities should include short-term,intermediate-term, and long-term programs, objectives and goals, and a financial and time analysis of each of these. Once this analysis has been performed, leaders need to rate each program, project and event, in terms of both importance, perspective and relevance.
In my three decades of working with not-for-profits and other organizations, I have unfortunately observed that prioritizing tends to be one of the most overlooked items of leadership. The vast majority of untrained leaders tend to lead either based on some emotional attachment to an idea, a poorly conceived or understood notion, or as crisis managers. While every organization faces a "crunch time" which may or may not be perceived as a crisis, well trained leaders pre-plan for contingencies, and tend to be better able to cope when some difficult event occurs. However, when leaders do not properly use priority leadership as a core concept, very often ill-prepared leaders then spend too much time on non-priority items, and inadequate time on important ones. Using priority management techniques, leaders are far more capable of avoiding getting bogged down in minutia, and continue to see and understand the big picture.
Friday, September 17, 2010
What Is An Action Plan?
We often hear individuals talk about the importance of creating and utilizing an action plan, yet few individuals who are leaders of organizations ever fully take advantage of the usefulness of action plans. Action plans not only provide guidelines and guidance, but create a methodology to accomplish ones objectives.
The first thing one must do is create an objective or goal of a particular project or goal. This objective should be broken into long-term, intermediate-term and short-term needs. Once an objective has been decided upon, that objective must be examined to assure that it is in line with an organization's mission. If an organization's mission is in contradiction with a particular project's objective, leadership must examine if this contradiction is acceptable, if it makes it unworkable, or if either the mission or the objective needs updating or adjustment. Leaders must fully examine all ramifications of taking such an action, however, before they decide on any such action.
Once this procedure has been accomplished, it must be determined what the priorities of this plan are. There must be long-term, intermediate-term, and short-term objectives and/or goals, and the plan must be a workable program to accomplish the objectives.
This means that an action plan must list each action that needs to be taken, in a time order. It must also include alternative actions that might be used if a plan needs some "tweaking." Each of these actions must be broken up into sub-categories, and the intermediate steps must be listed, and a timetable placed for each one. The responsible individual for each part of the plan must be noted, as well as a "Need by date." In addition, there must be a strategy for thorough follow-up and examination of the action plan on an ongoing basis, as well as a mechanism for making needed adjustments.
Part of the action plan is also a cost evaluation. These costs include not only the actual expense in terms of both monies and possible lost revenues, as well as the costs in terms of personnel costs and time. Possible costs also include potential ramifications from existing members, who may not favor the changes being proposed.
One must always remember that an action plan has little value if it is either undeveloped, not fully developed, or does not move from the exercise stage to the implementation and action stage. Since many leaders prefer using rhetoric to actually taking action, an effective action plan will only work if leaders are properly trained in all aspects of use.
This discussion is only a beginning in terms of the realities of an action plan. However, my three decades of experience have clearly demonstrated that effective organizations always take advantage of creating and using action plans.
The first thing one must do is create an objective or goal of a particular project or goal. This objective should be broken into long-term, intermediate-term and short-term needs. Once an objective has been decided upon, that objective must be examined to assure that it is in line with an organization's mission. If an organization's mission is in contradiction with a particular project's objective, leadership must examine if this contradiction is acceptable, if it makes it unworkable, or if either the mission or the objective needs updating or adjustment. Leaders must fully examine all ramifications of taking such an action, however, before they decide on any such action.
Once this procedure has been accomplished, it must be determined what the priorities of this plan are. There must be long-term, intermediate-term, and short-term objectives and/or goals, and the plan must be a workable program to accomplish the objectives.
This means that an action plan must list each action that needs to be taken, in a time order. It must also include alternative actions that might be used if a plan needs some "tweaking." Each of these actions must be broken up into sub-categories, and the intermediate steps must be listed, and a timetable placed for each one. The responsible individual for each part of the plan must be noted, as well as a "Need by date." In addition, there must be a strategy for thorough follow-up and examination of the action plan on an ongoing basis, as well as a mechanism for making needed adjustments.
Part of the action plan is also a cost evaluation. These costs include not only the actual expense in terms of both monies and possible lost revenues, as well as the costs in terms of personnel costs and time. Possible costs also include potential ramifications from existing members, who may not favor the changes being proposed.
One must always remember that an action plan has little value if it is either undeveloped, not fully developed, or does not move from the exercise stage to the implementation and action stage. Since many leaders prefer using rhetoric to actually taking action, an effective action plan will only work if leaders are properly trained in all aspects of use.
This discussion is only a beginning in terms of the realities of an action plan. However, my three decades of experience have clearly demonstrated that effective organizations always take advantage of creating and using action plans.
Leaders Need To Stay Focused on The Big Picture
Many organizational leaders seem to operate on a "crisis to crisis" basis, rather than planning ahead and being prepared for possibilities. This challenge is then often multiplied by these same leaders inability to stay focused on the big picture. This means that leaders have to understand what their desired end result should be, and work to create a priority system, completing the most essential components of the plan before having their attention diverted to other problems.
Many children are taught that they should "not sweat the petty stuff," yet many organizational leaders appear to have forgotten this important childhood lesson. While many issues come up simultaneously, effective leaders realize that they must focus on the most important issues first, because if those are not properly functioning, the lesser issues have little to no chance of succeeding. Many leaders seem to lack either the ability or training to be able to evaluate an issue based on its merits, without then going off tangentially to discuss "side" issues. While all these issues may have some significance, this tangential-oriented behavior often causes leaders to fully examine the primary issue first, and resolve it, if possible, without going off tangentially.
Leaders must think, "What do I want to accomplish?"
Many children are taught that they should "not sweat the petty stuff," yet many organizational leaders appear to have forgotten this important childhood lesson. While many issues come up simultaneously, effective leaders realize that they must focus on the most important issues first, because if those are not properly functioning, the lesser issues have little to no chance of succeeding. Many leaders seem to lack either the ability or training to be able to evaluate an issue based on its merits, without then going off tangentially to discuss "side" issues. While all these issues may have some significance, this tangential-oriented behavior often causes leaders to fully examine the primary issue first, and resolve it, if possible, without going off tangentially.
Leaders must think, "What do I want to accomplish?"
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Why Strategic Planning?
While many organizations have heard of strategic planning, and even claim to strategically plan, few actually do so effectively. Many organizations and their leaders discuss strategic planning as if it is some sort of panacea for "fixing" the organization. That expression is almost as misused as "getting to the next level." It is somewhat amazing that few organizations, and few leaders seem to comprehend that strategic planning must be an ongoing process, if it is to be an effective use of time. Otherwise, what many organizations refer to as strategic planning ends up being little more than an exercise in philosophy and oration.
The first step in effective strategic planning is to properly identify where an organization is at presently, and how it got there. What is the history of the organization, and how does that and the organization's mission impact its planning? How can the organization evolve to improve, while maintaining its reason for being? Strategic planners must carefully understand the ramifications of its actions, or conversely, what the impact of not acting might be.
This process must identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, as well as the reasons and causes for each. All too often, so-called strategic planners inaccurately identify either strengths or weaknesses, or both, and then make decisions or recommendations based on false or faulty premises. This is often seen, especially on the weaknesses sign, when an organization is facing a challenge in a specific area, and often oversimplifies, misinterprets, or misunderstands the reason for the obstactle. When planning begins based on inaccurate premises, the plan is doomed from the onset.
Strategic planners must consider all alternatives in their deliberations. They must consider factors such as short-term, intermediate-term and long-term impacts, ramifications, costs both in terms of financial as well as personnel related. Costs include not only direct costs, but also indirect costs, such as the wastes and excesses. Planners must consider multiple alternatives, and weigh all relevant factors in analyzing ideas.
Strategic planning necessitates entering the process with an open mind, and considering alternatives. Where many organizations drop the ball, however, is that after they expend considerable time, energy and other resources in the process, they do not develop an action plan to assure the timely achievement of the plan.
The first step in effective strategic planning is to properly identify where an organization is at presently, and how it got there. What is the history of the organization, and how does that and the organization's mission impact its planning? How can the organization evolve to improve, while maintaining its reason for being? Strategic planners must carefully understand the ramifications of its actions, or conversely, what the impact of not acting might be.
This process must identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, as well as the reasons and causes for each. All too often, so-called strategic planners inaccurately identify either strengths or weaknesses, or both, and then make decisions or recommendations based on false or faulty premises. This is often seen, especially on the weaknesses sign, when an organization is facing a challenge in a specific area, and often oversimplifies, misinterprets, or misunderstands the reason for the obstactle. When planning begins based on inaccurate premises, the plan is doomed from the onset.
Strategic planners must consider all alternatives in their deliberations. They must consider factors such as short-term, intermediate-term and long-term impacts, ramifications, costs both in terms of financial as well as personnel related. Costs include not only direct costs, but also indirect costs, such as the wastes and excesses. Planners must consider multiple alternatives, and weigh all relevant factors in analyzing ideas.
Strategic planning necessitates entering the process with an open mind, and considering alternatives. Where many organizations drop the ball, however, is that after they expend considerable time, energy and other resources in the process, they do not develop an action plan to assure the timely achievement of the plan.
Ethics are Essential to Leadership
Many leaders find themselves with the dilemma of being popular versus making the sometimes difficult, yet necessary decisions. True leaders understand that leadership requires managing by following one's principles, and being guided by what is ethical and responsible.
In many organizations, this battle is exacerbated by the fact that it is often difficult to find qualified leaders, as well as by the fact that the vast majority of organizations do not have any type of true leadership training. In the past three decades, I have observed that while most organizations believe that they engage in leadership training, since this training does not encompass those necessities of leadership, and are generally neither professionally prepared or presented, little is achieved. The obstacle is that since most existing leaders are neither trained nor fully qualified, and therefore do not fully understand how to train leaders, it is often difficult for those "leaders" to "let go," and permit an organized, consistent and ongoing leadership training program to be conducted.
In general, human nature is such that most people strive to be liked and/or admired. However, since being liked is not a guiding principle for effective leadership, there is often a breakdown in the leadership process. Doing the right thing for the organization, without fear of hurting one's popularity, is, in fact, essential to effective leadership.
Leaders must be guided by the principles of morality, ethics, and, specifically, being guided by what is in the best interests of the organization. Effective leaders realize that doing that many not be popular, but is often necessary. Undoubtedly, there would be more effective and qualified leaders if organizations prioritized professional and ongoing leadership training.
In observing organizations for three decades, I am consistently amazed that following principles and ethics is the exception rather than the rule. If an organization is to fluorish, it needs effective leadership.
In many organizations, this battle is exacerbated by the fact that it is often difficult to find qualified leaders, as well as by the fact that the vast majority of organizations do not have any type of true leadership training. In the past three decades, I have observed that while most organizations believe that they engage in leadership training, since this training does not encompass those necessities of leadership, and are generally neither professionally prepared or presented, little is achieved. The obstacle is that since most existing leaders are neither trained nor fully qualified, and therefore do not fully understand how to train leaders, it is often difficult for those "leaders" to "let go," and permit an organized, consistent and ongoing leadership training program to be conducted.
In general, human nature is such that most people strive to be liked and/or admired. However, since being liked is not a guiding principle for effective leadership, there is often a breakdown in the leadership process. Doing the right thing for the organization, without fear of hurting one's popularity, is, in fact, essential to effective leadership.
Leaders must be guided by the principles of morality, ethics, and, specifically, being guided by what is in the best interests of the organization. Effective leaders realize that doing that many not be popular, but is often necessary. Undoubtedly, there would be more effective and qualified leaders if organizations prioritized professional and ongoing leadership training.
In observing organizations for three decades, I am consistently amazed that following principles and ethics is the exception rather than the rule. If an organization is to fluorish, it needs effective leadership.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Economic Analysis - - Hype vs Reality - Confusion
No wonder most people don't understand the economy. Often what might seem good on one hand, has bad side effects on the other. For example, the stock market rises- one would think that was good! But that was mostly due to the rising price of oil- bad news. But, often the price of oil rises because the "experts" believe the economy is improving and thus more oil will be needed in production- good news! But that rise in oil prices causes the cost of living to increase- bad news. But that helps the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)- good news! But that then causes inflation- bad news. But that inflation means the economy is improving- good news! But then the Fed becomes concerned about inflation and raises interest rates- bad news! Which causes the value of the dollar to improve- good news! But that hurts exports because now American products cost more overseas- bad news! But that means foreign products cost less in the US- good news! But that hurts American companies competitiveness- bad news!
If we think that political analysis and political chatter is often more hype than anything else, the same can certainly be said about analyzing economic news! You can readily see why economic news often seems co confusing. Economic news often seems confusing because it is - - what is good for one consumer, might be bad for another- what is good for one company, bad for another- what might be good for one sector of economy- bad for others.
The stock market is often the most confusing. On days when there is "bad news," the market often goes up, while on some "good news" days, the market sometimes goes down! While the Dow, or the S&P, etc., might go up, it does not mean that the stock(s) you own, will follow suit.
Too often, for the sake of a sound-byte, the media tries to over-simplify economic news. Yet the economy is by definition quite complex. The one issue there should be some agreement on is that high unemployment is not good. Yet even in that case, the "experts" can't agree upon, nor act upon a viable solution.
The best way to think about the economy is this-- the difference between a recession and a depression is that it's a recession when it happens to someone else-- it's a depression when it happens to you!
It is my belief that a healthy economy requires certain factors to be in place - - low joblessness; high consumer confidence; a strong manufacturing sector; and reduced government deficits. That is what we must demand!
If we think that political analysis and political chatter is often more hype than anything else, the same can certainly be said about analyzing economic news! You can readily see why economic news often seems co confusing. Economic news often seems confusing because it is - - what is good for one consumer, might be bad for another- what is good for one company, bad for another- what might be good for one sector of economy- bad for others.
The stock market is often the most confusing. On days when there is "bad news," the market often goes up, while on some "good news" days, the market sometimes goes down! While the Dow, or the S&P, etc., might go up, it does not mean that the stock(s) you own, will follow suit.
Too often, for the sake of a sound-byte, the media tries to over-simplify economic news. Yet the economy is by definition quite complex. The one issue there should be some agreement on is that high unemployment is not good. Yet even in that case, the "experts" can't agree upon, nor act upon a viable solution.
The best way to think about the economy is this-- the difference between a recession and a depression is that it's a recession when it happens to someone else-- it's a depression when it happens to you!
It is my belief that a healthy economy requires certain factors to be in place - - low joblessness; high consumer confidence; a strong manufacturing sector; and reduced government deficits. That is what we must demand!
Leadership Training Priorities
In my three decades of management and leadership consulting and training, it has become abundantly clear to me that adequate and effective leadership is a major obstacle and challenge for most organizations. Most organizations neither effectively qualify potential leaders nor have a mechanism in place to assure that leaders maximize their potential to succeed. I generally recommend that organizations emphasize and prioritize leadership training. These are the basics of leadership training, and the components that all successful programs include:
(1) An organization must have programs for various levels of leadership. The first level is entry level, or early leadership identification and development. These individuals are also known as the future leaders. Next, there is intermediate leadership training, or training leaders at the local and/or lower levels of the organization. There must then be advanced training, for those entering Board or Trustee levels of leadership. Finally, there must be elite training, for those involved in the highest leadership positions of an organization.
(2) Organizations must train in what is required to be a leader. In other words, "How to be a leader?"
(3) What are the skills required for leadership? These include communication,effective listening, negotiations, staff oversight, member relations, decision making, etc.
(4) How to market the organization? This means getting existing members more involved, lapsed members excited again, and potential members to join, as well as exciting donors and potential donors./
(5) How to clearly elucidate the mission statement of the organization? This includes clearly creating one that effectively yet briefly explains the importance of the organization, what it does and what it stands for.
(6) Leaders must understand all aspects of motivation.
(7) Leaders must be trained to be able to both write an effective letter, and give an adequate and motivating speech and/ or address.
(8) How to answer objections? Leaders must fully be able to use the five steps to answering an objection.
(9) How to effectively work with co-leaders and staff? What should a leader expect?
(10) What is the difference between micromanaging and effective management? What must be done before a leader can effectively delegate responsibilities?
(11) Leaders must fully understand the organization.
(12) Leaders must be trained to fully utilize all aspects of the decision making process, and understand all potential ramifications, both positive and negative, of either making a decision and taking action, or conversely, what might occur if no action is taken.
(13) What are the components of leadership judgment? What is involved in the process?
(14) Leaders must learn the basics of negotiation, as well as the pitfalls of contracts.
(15) When should a leader and an organization use a consultant, and when not to do? What should an organization look for in a consultant?
These fifteen items are just the "tip of the iceberg." However, when one evaluates and compares the most effective organizations and compares that to those that flounder, in the vast majority of cases, a significant difference is the concentration on leadership training and qualification. Today, many organizations seem to be suffering from a dearth of leadership and involvement, and one of the major causes of that, is the lack of concentration on developing and training its leaders.
(1) An organization must have programs for various levels of leadership. The first level is entry level, or early leadership identification and development. These individuals are also known as the future leaders. Next, there is intermediate leadership training, or training leaders at the local and/or lower levels of the organization. There must then be advanced training, for those entering Board or Trustee levels of leadership. Finally, there must be elite training, for those involved in the highest leadership positions of an organization.
(2) Organizations must train in what is required to be a leader. In other words, "How to be a leader?"
(3) What are the skills required for leadership? These include communication,effective listening, negotiations, staff oversight, member relations, decision making, etc.
(4) How to market the organization? This means getting existing members more involved, lapsed members excited again, and potential members to join, as well as exciting donors and potential donors./
(5) How to clearly elucidate the mission statement of the organization? This includes clearly creating one that effectively yet briefly explains the importance of the organization, what it does and what it stands for.
(6) Leaders must understand all aspects of motivation.
(7) Leaders must be trained to be able to both write an effective letter, and give an adequate and motivating speech and/ or address.
(8) How to answer objections? Leaders must fully be able to use the five steps to answering an objection.
(9) How to effectively work with co-leaders and staff? What should a leader expect?
(10) What is the difference between micromanaging and effective management? What must be done before a leader can effectively delegate responsibilities?
(11) Leaders must fully understand the organization.
(12) Leaders must be trained to fully utilize all aspects of the decision making process, and understand all potential ramifications, both positive and negative, of either making a decision and taking action, or conversely, what might occur if no action is taken.
(13) What are the components of leadership judgment? What is involved in the process?
(14) Leaders must learn the basics of negotiation, as well as the pitfalls of contracts.
(15) When should a leader and an organization use a consultant, and when not to do? What should an organization look for in a consultant?
These fifteen items are just the "tip of the iceberg." However, when one evaluates and compares the most effective organizations and compares that to those that flounder, in the vast majority of cases, a significant difference is the concentration on leadership training and qualification. Today, many organizations seem to be suffering from a dearth of leadership and involvement, and one of the major causes of that, is the lack of concentration on developing and training its leaders.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Steps to Getting It Done!
There comes a time when we all grow weary of those individuals who are constantly putting their "two cents" in, but never follow through on anything. In my three decades of consulting, I have come to refer to these individuals as the "talkers," or the annoying individuals who love to give suggestions, but almost never do anything about it.
Organizations and their leaders need to recognize the need to "get it done." This means that while coming up with an idea is a good starting point, that is all it is, and should not be misconstrued as any type of actual action! It is always far easier to criticize a plan or an idea, than it is to actually give an alternative. Since no plan, no matter how well designed and planned, is ever perfect, and there is always room for improvement, there is always something available to criticize. However, when I consult to an organization, or conduct a leadership training program, I "forbid" empty criticisms that merely object, unless they are accompanied by alternative courses of action. Therefore, I recommend that all leaders, and all organizations, develop a course of action, or, in other words, "Steps for Getting It Done." Organizations and leaders would be well served to use the following suggestions to develop their own customized "steps":
(1) Fully develop the concept. That means that an idea should be thought of in terms of what its goals are, what the timetable is, the reason for the change; and the possible positive and/ or negative ramifications.
(2) What are the financial impacts, both in terms of out-of-pocket expense or investment, as well as in terms of time commitment?
(3) Will this plan endanger any other aspect of the organization?
(4) How will members view this plan?
(5) How will you communicate the plan to members, donors, etc?
(6) What is the action plan? Who will be responsible for overseeing the plan? What will the oversight consist of?
(7) What is the timetable?
(8) Why might someone object to this idea?
(9) Will this plan be a top, intermediate, or low priority?
(10) What will be the follow through?
(11) How will you track this plan?
(12) Is this a short-term, intermediate or long-term endeavor?
(13) What do you hope to achieve?
(14) Are the goals achievable?
(15) Since a leaders tenure in office is limited, how will you ensure its continuity?
These are just a few of the questions that organizations and leaders should always ask, and that most organizations do not. Probably the biggest challenge that most organizations have is a dearth of true leadership, because most organizations do not commit enough time, resources or energy to prioritizing leadership training. Because of this, in most organizations, leaders ascend to positions that they are not prepared for, and many organizations either flounder or, at the very least, do not achieve their optimum results!
Organizations and their leaders need to recognize the need to "get it done." This means that while coming up with an idea is a good starting point, that is all it is, and should not be misconstrued as any type of actual action! It is always far easier to criticize a plan or an idea, than it is to actually give an alternative. Since no plan, no matter how well designed and planned, is ever perfect, and there is always room for improvement, there is always something available to criticize. However, when I consult to an organization, or conduct a leadership training program, I "forbid" empty criticisms that merely object, unless they are accompanied by alternative courses of action. Therefore, I recommend that all leaders, and all organizations, develop a course of action, or, in other words, "Steps for Getting It Done." Organizations and leaders would be well served to use the following suggestions to develop their own customized "steps":
(1) Fully develop the concept. That means that an idea should be thought of in terms of what its goals are, what the timetable is, the reason for the change; and the possible positive and/ or negative ramifications.
(2) What are the financial impacts, both in terms of out-of-pocket expense or investment, as well as in terms of time commitment?
(3) Will this plan endanger any other aspect of the organization?
(4) How will members view this plan?
(5) How will you communicate the plan to members, donors, etc?
(6) What is the action plan? Who will be responsible for overseeing the plan? What will the oversight consist of?
(7) What is the timetable?
(8) Why might someone object to this idea?
(9) Will this plan be a top, intermediate, or low priority?
(10) What will be the follow through?
(11) How will you track this plan?
(12) Is this a short-term, intermediate or long-term endeavor?
(13) What do you hope to achieve?
(14) Are the goals achievable?
(15) Since a leaders tenure in office is limited, how will you ensure its continuity?
These are just a few of the questions that organizations and leaders should always ask, and that most organizations do not. Probably the biggest challenge that most organizations have is a dearth of true leadership, because most organizations do not commit enough time, resources or energy to prioritizing leadership training. Because of this, in most organizations, leaders ascend to positions that they are not prepared for, and many organizations either flounder or, at the very least, do not achieve their optimum results!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)