If Life Deals You Lemons, You Need To Make Lemonade

We all experience periods of bad times as well as periods of good. Individuals who adapt to misfortunes by learning from these experiences, and somehow benefiting, are generally both the happiest and the most successful. The adage, "Life is not a bowl of cherries" tells us that not everything will always work out the way we hope, or even anticipate, and to understand that limitation in order to best adapt to circumstances.

Many people seem to enjoy complaining that life is unfair, and hasn't dealt them a fair hand. Realistically, life doesn't "deal," it simply offers us opportunities to either take advantage of, do nothing, or use poorly. There is never any guarantee in anything we do, but our "odds" of succeeding are distinctly enhanced when we take advantage of possibilities, improve our abilities, and upgrade our skill-set, rather than say, "I can't do that." Many individuals seem to prefer making excuses than taking the necessary actions to enhance skills that might be lacking (or need upgrading).

Obviously, not everyone can do writing or mathematics easily. All too many of those individuals, either due to frustration, inadequate training or education, or a "mental block," simply give up, and stop attempting to write or use mathematics, unless absolutely necessary. Others recognize their limitations, and use the opportunities offered to enhance their training, learn other skills, take training, or discipline themselves, and do to this added commitment, become "above par" in these areas.

A great example of using ones limitations, and "making lemonade when life deals you lemons," is how one might adapt to difficulty "keyboarding." Unfortunately, many, if not most individuals, handle this "obstacle" by using "avoidance techniques," and by avoiding using the keyboard, often neglect necessary tasks and duties, such as doing school or work assignments, as well as enjoying activities that comfort with using the keyboard would afford them. The individual who wants to "make lemonade," on the other hand, would find an alternative way of handling this circumstance. One such alternative might be installing and using "voice recognition software, such as Dragon 10. In that way, the obstacle of the use of the keyboard, whether due to a physical reason, a lack of patience, or some other disruptive "force," can not only be as productive as someone comfortable with the keyboard, but in many ways even more productive. This program permits one to use e-mail, word processing, PowerPoint, spreadsheets, etc., via the use of voice commands, instead of keyboards. The programs are easy to install, and easy to use, yet, of course require the individual to become familiar with the many features to fully take advantage of the program. For example, it is estimated that someone can "type" something approximately four times as quickly using voice commands than using the keyboard. Therefore, the individual who takes advantage of this alternative is using a potential obstacle, and instead of merely complaining about it, finds "another way" to function effectively.

In many areas of everyday life, we find tons of obstacles where we have choices - - either complain and be negative, or "think outside the box" and find a better way. Successful individuals do not give up, but rather find ways to get things done. Most things are possible if one thinks positively!

Enough Of These Campaign Signs

Regardless of one's political orientation or views, I think we can all agree that there are far too many political campaign signs strewn all over our streets. There are signs on trees, on fences, on telephone polls, and then all those signs with the stakes that are planted everywhere.

In many towns and other municipalities, there are numerous restrictions about non-political signage. Many towns prohibit real estate signs such as Open House signs any place other than for a limited period directly on the the property of the house that is for sale. Many communities prohibit the posting of garage sale, and other types of individual signs. Yet, when it comes to political signage, it seems that there are few restrictions.

On a ride of under a mile yesterday, I observed no fewer than two hundred political campaign signs. Some were on posts, and others on stakes, while a few were stuck in bushes and on fences. To call these an eyesore, is an understatement! Even worse, these signs almost invariably state little more than a candidate's name, and obviously give a potential voter little insight into the candidate. At one point, I observed a dozen signs for the same candidate on one stretch of town property in a middle area of the road.

This is certainly nothing new in political campaigns, but it seems in this year and time of excesses, that it is even more extreme and excessive this year than most. Even more disconcerting is that in the past, many of these signs remained behind months, and sometimes, even years, after the election.

Perhaps this is just another evidence of urban blight. But, it is overwhelming not only in urban areas, but in rural areas as well. It is an equal opportunity litterer, strewn thorough neighborhoods regardless of socio-economics. To me, it is merely graffiti without the artists, and adds nothing to the debate.

It does not appear to be a Democrat versus Republican, or conservative versus liberal issue, because candidates of all political persuasions are equally guilty. However, when some of these candidates brag about their record on the environment, how can they reconcile that with all the paper, cardboard, plastic, and other materials that are wasted by these eyesores. It's time to change the system, and the outlook.

Proactive Versus Reactive Leadership

While the most effective leaders are almost always proactive, the vast majority of organizational leaders I have met in the past three decades of working with organizations, have behaved predominantly in a reactive manner. Dictionary.com defines "proactive" as: "serving to prepare for, intervene in, or control an unexpected occurrence or situation, esp. a negative or difficult one; anticipatory." On the other hand, when we refer to reactive leaders, we normally are referring to leaders who have their actions determined by situations, therefore generally acting after the fact.

One of the major causes of organizational leaders reacting reactively instead of proactively is that a large percentage of leaders are fearful. Unfortunately, many leaders are ill-prepared for leadership, and fear making the wrong decision, so procrastinate when action would be the recommended course. This can either result in taking incorrect and indecisive action, or procrastinating and not taking needed action. Many of the most effective organizational leaders become extremely frustrated dealing with reactive co-leaders.

Organizations must do strategic planning, on an ongoing basis. There is also, in most cases, the necessity for taking greater financial control of their organization. I have previously written Associated Content articles about organizational budgeting, and the importance of effectively using zero-based budgeting. Another danger to many organizations is that too many leaders do not recognize the importance of taking true fiscal restraints and controls. Most organizations should severely limit the amount of controls that staffs have over organizational funds, including limiting the size of checks a staff member can sign. It is also recommended that organizations create a maximum sum where only one signatory is required for a check, and that over that amount, more than one signer be required.

Leaders must recognize that financial obligations and methods for organizations, and what is appropriate courses of actions, are different for organizations than for individuals. Much has been written about the "prudent man rule," requiring leaders to act in a fiduciary manner as the most prudent (or careful) individual would. While certain financial risks might be acceptable for individual portfolios and investments, much more conservative restrictions must be placed on organizational funds.

One of the most recurrent issues that organizations face are staff-related issues. Proactive leaders attempt to anticipate what might happen, while reactive leaders often adopt a wait-and-see, don't rock-the-boat attitude. Organizations that have continuous periods of reactive leaders almost always end up with issues, and sometimes, even crises, that are avoidable and regrettable.

Morals And Ethics Are Important Leadership Qualities

Because many organizational leaders are elected either because of popularity or politics, it is not unusual that some of these leaders act expediently rather than always doing the "right thing." Since most organizations have not taken sufficient steps to properly qualify their leaders, nor to professionally train them, there is often not only a dearth of qualified leadership, but even more so, there are moral and ethical leadership issues that are also never properly addressed by these "leaders."

Moral and ethical organizational leaders necessitate that leaders always put their organizations best interest ahead of their own "agenda." In addition, leaders must avoid even the appearance of any conflict, and thus, if there is anything that anyone might misinterpret, a leader mjust disclose any potential conflict up front and completely.

Leaders must take "confidentiality" issues seriously. Leaders should never disclose or violate a "confidence," and if there is any doubt, the leader should request a clarification and approval from the individual whose confidentiality is at issue. Properly run organizations always require written "Confidentiality Agreements" from any Board member, committee member, officer, etc. If attendees at these meetings do not feel confident that they cannot speak openly without potential ramifications from diswclosure, Boards, meetings and committee effectiveness, is often severely hampered.

Morality of leadership also means that leaders should not be "two-faced." In my three decades of involvement with numerous organizations, I have come into contact with numerous "leaders" who are extremely two-faced, say different things to different people, or criticize others (but never to their face). Besides obviously being disingenuous and dishonest, these leaders are acting unethically, because leadership is not about being popular, but rather about "setting an example" of service, direction, and openly addressing the needs of the organization.

Unfortunately, these circumstances will continue to prevail at the majority of organizations. Until and unless an organization decides it "can do better," and "should do better," it generally continues with the status quo, of simply electing or selecting its leaders based on unprofessional criteria. Organizations that wish to excel and evolve, and truly want to accomplish its mission, understand the significance and need to develop both a better qualification criteria for potential leaders, as well as a professionally designed and administered multi-tiered leadership training program. Organizations must always ensure that their leaders are equipped and knowledgeable regarding all the basics and needs of leadership training, including the necessary skills, and the methodologies.

Leaders Must Have A Historical Perspective

One of the most glaring differences between effective and ineffective leaders is that effective leaders realize that there are lessons to be learned from all experiences. When a personal item from the past, or someone
elses, it is incumbent on a leader to learn a lesson from the past, in order to avoid continuously making the same error or mistake. In my three decades of working with management of organizations, I have discovered that effective leaders admit there are lessons to be learned, while many weaker and less effective ones seem unwilling to admit that they "don't know it all."

Each of us have made some mistakes or errors in judgments, or at least had certain ramifications to actions that we have or have not taken. The sign of an individual possessing leadership qualities is that a leader learns from anything that he has experienced, and these experiences help mold more effective actions in the future. I have discovered that many ineffective leaders rarely admit that they have made any errors, and generally prefer using the "blame game," blaming others instead of taking any type of personal responsibility. Effective leaders always take "ownership" of their ideas, and accept responsibilities for their actions. All too often, ineffective leaders only "take ownership," after the fact, even if the action taken was taken over their original objections. Effective leaders tend to get things done, while ineffective leaders love to talk about what they have done.

Effective leaders learn from the past, whether it was something they personally experienced, or something that occurred to someone else in a similar experience. However, these leaders also realize that things change and evolve, and that there is a lot of difference between learning from the past, and getting "hung up" by it. While effective leaders realize this important distinction, I have witnessed many weak and ineffective leaders that only use the past as an excuse when it is convenient, but rarely studying the past, and learning whatever lessons were there to be taught and learned.

The major causes of ineffective leadership are poor leadership qualification formats, and even poorer leadership training. Organizations unwilling to commit to effective and professional leadership training will rarely evolve as necessary, and will continuously be facing a dearth of effective leadership.

Leadership Is About Results, Not Style

Having observed organizational leadership for three decades, ineffective leaders invariably explain their reasoning by referring to their methods as "leadership style." While they refer to it as their style, I call it a lack of leadership! It is nearly an oxymoron to justify poor leadership as one's "leadership style,' because leading is not a matter of style, but rather a matter of implementation, effectiveness, and having a vision. However, "vision" without a plan to implement the vision, is nothing more than "blind" leadership. I believe that leaders who do not plan properly are usually acting in the "blind," and it is very rare that "blind" leadership is at all effective. Many organizational leaders seem to prefer a "hands off," above the frill style of leadership. Unfortunately, unless these volunteer leaders are involved with one of the very few organizations that are effectively led, and directed by paid staff, most effective leaders need to be willing to get thekir hands dirty.

Effective leadership requires thorough planning, and that is not a matter of "style." Rhetoric is a matter of style, but rhetoric alone, while it may sound exciting, never accomplishes an end result. How one conducts a meeting, gives a speech, relates to people, etc., are all things that relate to style. However, effective leadership mandates first having a "vision," then creating an action plan, and then doing the "nitty gritty" to assure that the vision is accomplished. I have previously published articles about strategic planning, as well as about action plans, and when you read those, you will realize how essential I believe these things are to being an effective leader.

Most leaders are not "born leaders," but are rather trained and developed. Many "leaders" who believe in "style" often "talk the talk," but rarely "walk the walk." Unfortunately, since there are more leaders that are more "style than substance," these individuals generally show an arrogance towards the realities of leadership - - that is, the hard work, decision making, planning, follow-up, and implementation.

Until an organization understands and implements multi- staged leadership training, that organization will not develop to its potential. The dearth of leadership, which is generally related to an inadequate process for qualifying leaders, combined with an unwillingness to develop thorough and professional leadership training, is the greatest obstacle to organizational competency.

it is a sad reality that of the several hundred leaders I have both observed and consulted to in the past three decades, the overwhelming majority, while often very nice individuals, are ill-equipped to be leaders. I have observed very few organizations that give sufficient attention to qualifying leaders, leadership training and development, and paying sufficient attention to details, strategic planning, and developing essential and implementable action plans!

Expectations

Many of us fall into the trap of having overly optimistic expectations of what to expect from other people that we deal with. It is human nature to often superimpose our values upon others, and we then expect others to think, behave and do what we might. This is particularly an issue when it comes to organizational management, when some leaders are far more "hands-on," some are more knowledgeable, some more experienced, and some have far greater expertise. Another issue that often arises regarding our expectations of others is that many extremely hard working and effective leaders expect others to be as dedicated as they are, and that often brings on disappointments and/ or hard feelings.

Unlike in business, where upper management can clearly state its expectations of its managers and supervisors, in organizations, the same is generally not true. Most organizational leaders are volunteers, and therefore the reality is that their "real careers" often need to take priority. Unfortunately, because most organizations do not adequately train its leaders, these individuals do not know fully how to maximally utilize their time, and the basics of optimum time management.

Organizational management and leadership is often a rather complex issue. Because different organizations use varying degrees of paid staff, and different organizations assign different duties to staff, if leaders are not clearly trained in what it means to be a leader in that organization, very often, the expectations game causes massive inefficiencies.

This becomes exacerbated because, in most cases, there is no adequate training of the paid staff, either. Therefore, different leaders might have differing expectations as to what the staff will do, as well as the staff's capabilities. Most organizations are inadequately prepared to evaluate their staff because their leadership has never been trained in that aspect of volunteer organizational leadership.

In three decades of being involved with organizations, as a member, staff member, Director of Development, Director of Operations, trainer, and consultant, I am still amazed, that even after all these years, it appears that many organizations keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Einstein was correct when he said that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing repeatedly, and expecting different results. Again, it's obvious a measure and factor of our expectations!

Leaders Must Be Willing To Act

Since leadership often requires making difficult decisions, how come so many "leaders" seem to be afraid to act? Many "leaders" seem to behave as if no action is taken, matters will work themselves out. While in a small
minority of situations, that may turn out to be the case, in the vast majority of cases, leaders need to take some sort of action to remedy situations. Leaders have the option of preemptive action, or simply reacting after the fact. In the past three decades, I have witnessed this dilemma so many times, that I am fully convinced that effective leadership requires understanding the ramifications of potential situations, and taking preemptive action when that possibility is available.

Poorly trained "leaders" are often afraid to act because they suffer from a sort of paralysis, due to their lack of preparedness, effectiveness, and knowledge. When individuals who are not prepared to lead are then thrust into leadership positions and situations, they are often ill-prepared to act. Action requires understanding a situation, and either having the skills and abilities, or surrounding oneself with trusted aides who possess the necessary skill set. Unfortunately, most ill-prepared leaders are unwilling to admit they are ill-prepared, or are so ill-prepared that they do not even realize that they lack the necessities.

Almost no "true leaders" are born leaders. The most effective leaders take the necessary courses, undergo the necessary training, learn the important keys to effective decision making, etc. I have previously written a number of Associated Content articles about decision making, leadership training, and effective leadership. Qualified leaders are few and far between, and any organization blessed enough to have an effective leader, should cherish that leader and utilize the skills of the individual to hopefully train others.

Individuals that are afraid of making decisions or taking proactive action should reconsider leadership positions. Under those circumstances, it is an unfair burden on the individual, and counter-productive to the organization. An integral part of being a leader is courage, and so many "leaders" are afraid, that they feign courage while acting like cowards. Leaders must never take an objection to an idea as a personal condemnation, but rather they should view comments merely as someone elses opinion.

It is not leadership to avoid taking action. It is not leadership to put things off and say "it will all work out." It is not leadership to be unwilling to admit one's shortcomings and strengths. True leaders know themselves, and work out the best way to proactively advance the mission of their organization.

Making A Hotel Group Booking?

In the last three decades, I have observed countless organizations that cost themselves, financially as well as in time and energy, by arranging groups with hotels in an amateurish, rather than professional manner. Organizations that have set up a professionally designed approach have better fulfilled the needs of the group, the organization, and the attendees to the meeting, event or conference. Organizations should set up a procedure for contacting hotels with their group that they use whenever they shall be using twenty or more rooms per night. This is even more true when the meeting will also include Food and Beverage requirements. The following are some of the steps that should always be included:

(1) It is essential for the group organizer or coordinator to fully understand the group's needs. There must be a realistic estimate of guest rooms required, as well as any meeting rooms, food and beverage, etc.

(2) The group organizer must prepare a detailed budget, and must fully understand all costs involved. These costs include any needed complimentary rooms, guest room rates including all taxes, service charges and fees, meeting room rental (if applicable). and food and beverage expense (including taxes and mandatory service charges).

(3) A professionally prepared, detailed RFP (Request for Proposal) must be utilized, and must be sent simultaneously to multiple properties that might meet your needs. In the RFP, all needed hotel concessions, group rates offered, food and beverage concerns, and special needs and requests must be requested. The RFP should be accompanied by a cover letter with a brief overview of the organization and the history of this event, if any. In this cover letter, each hotel should be informed that the RFP is being submitted to multiple hotel properties, for competitive bid? The letter should also clearly list a cutoff date for return of the RFP for review. Today, much of the Request for Proposal procedure has been dramatically simplified, as many properties offer online requests.

(4) Much has to do with who is footing the bill for this meeting. Is the full cost being underwritten by the organization? Is the full cost being underwritten by attendees? Are the costs being shared in some manner?

(5) From a budgetary standpoint, is the intent to make money on the event?

(6) If the guest rooms are being paid for by attendees, what is the point where price becomes a major factor, in terms of attracting attendance?

(7) How does the organization pay for the master billing? Is there a need to establish credit? If there is, the organization should be prepared to submit a minimum of three references to establish the needed credit, and these references must be hotel properties that the organization has previously established credit with.

(8) What are the full costs that the organization will incur, per attendee, as well as in total? Is this cost justified in terms of the value of the event?

(9) A procedure must be in place prior to receiving the proposals back. This procedure must be how the proposals will be reviewed, by whom, what checklists to use.

(10) The organization must create a set of internal priorities, so that the competitive proposals can be compared, reviewed and evaluated. Are there any particular issues that might be "deal breakers?"

These ten items are not nearly all the factors that come into consideration in securing a group booking that will be optimum. However, they are a good beginning, and organizations that do not follow a procedure similar to the above, generally either overpay, don't get what's needed, sign a bad contract, etc. In today's competitive market, organizations should carefully review clauses regarding attrition, guarantees, givebacks, etc. Organizations need to have a thorough understanding of factors that impact their group bookings process, including optimizing hotel negotiations, food and beverage negotiations, needed hotel concessions, and letting several hotels compete for your business. If an organization utilizes the steps listed above, in addition to having an understanding of these other relevant issues just mentioned, the organization will get far more "bang for their buck."

Price And Cost Are Always Factors, But Not The Only Ones

Especially in challenging economic times, people seriously consider how much things cost and what the price is. When I was the Chief Operating Officer of a natural products manufacturer years ago, I remember that our price point was a serious consideration, in order to best position our products optimally in relation to others.
However, while pricing and costs are important factors, when it comes to conferences and conventions, a far more important factor is almost always perceived value.

In my three decades of hotel negotiations, event planning, and conference and convention planning and operations, I have witnessed repeatedly, situations where organizations over-emphasized only the price that participants would pay. In doing so, they often neglected creating a program and agenda that would attract attendees. Sometimes even more importantly, these organizations did not sufficiently emphasize the attendee's conference experience, and when that attendee went "back home," rather than being the organization's best ambassador, he reported a less than stellar experience.

The almost laughable, if it were not so incredibly short-sighted, part of this is that the amount of "cost savings" that these organizers implemented, had little impact on attracting significantly more attendance. However, at the same time, this reduction created financial risk for the organization and an inability to provide a superior attendee experience.

Organizers must recognize that a small price decrease in the fee for attending a conference often has little real impact on attendance. If it works at all, it only works in local events, where there are few expenses incurred by attendees besides the registration fee. However, many conferences require travel and hotel costs, and those costs often "dwarf" the registration fees.

In addition, if an organization is going to lower its registration fee, by how much will they reduce it? How much is a significant enough reduction to encourage additional attendance? What will be the overall impact on what conference organizers can do, when revenues are reduced?

I have heard numerous conference and convention organizers state that the reduced revenues will be offset by increased attendance. However, what these organizers often under-estimate is the true cost to the conference per attendee. If it takes more attendees to generate the same revenue, and registration fees are reduced by, for example ten percent, how much will attendance have to go up to offset the drop in revenue combined by the true cost per attendee? In many cases, a ten percent registration fee reduction will require close to a twenty percent increase in attendance and registrations.

Unfortunately, like many things done by many organizations, their conferences are often run by well-meaning individuals, who are, nevertheless, less than professional conference and convention coordinators. Organizations must analyze both the short term and longer term ramifications of addressing solely the registration fee issue, without, at the same time, analyzing the perceived value aspect. It is essential that organizers fully understand all aspects involved, including, especially, understanding their niche or target market.

It's Often Difficult Not To Interrupt

Have you ever been in the situation where you knew you should not interrupt someone during a conversation or a telephone call, you tried to force yourself to not interrupt, yet you still ended up interrupting, anyway? As frustrating as this habit is for most people, it is even more frustrating to someone like me, who has been teaching "Z.T.L." or "zip the lip" to others, as part of sales training seminars that I have been conducting for three decades.

One would think, therefore, that I would resist that urge myself during conversations with others. While I have learned to "force myself" to resist that urge to interrupt during the sales presentation process, I still find myself interrupting others far too often during other circumstances.

In attempting to understand why most of us find an urge to interrupt others, I have decided that there are several factors involved, including:

(1) Frustration that the other party is not getting to the point. Many of us, especially me, find "beating around the bush" extremely disturbing, and a waste of our time.

(2) We often disagree with the other party and feel the basic premise of that party's "argument" is not "worthy of common courtesy."

(3) We sometimes feel that we are the best qualified to answer or respond to a certain situation or question, and find an "urge to get to the point."

(4) We often get upset about a specific situation, and somewhat lose self- control.

(5) It is often easier to resist the urge to interrupt when one is having a face-to-face conversation, than when we are on the telephone. It is even more difficult to avoid interrupting when one is involved in a conference call.

(6) Many people merely interrupt because we like to hear the sound of our own voice, far more than the resonance of other voices.

While my professional background and expertise teaches me that it is rarely constructive to interrupt, it is often very difficult to resist such an urge. I pledge to try to interrupt less often, yet I realize that there will be times that I will still find myself unable to resist. Unfortunately, until I only have conversations with people that I feel "bring something valuable to the conversation," I will probably continue interrupting others,

Winners Never Give Up

From time to time, every individual experiences situations that often create self doubt, and certain other negative emotions. Few people can honestly say that they have never been confronted by a situation or a circumstance that seemed unwielding, and so daunting that they did not consider simply "throwing in the towel."

However, what differentiates most truly successful individuals is that they possess a winning attitude. This is an attitude that states that one determines ones own fate by how we react to what life deals us. The adage, "If life hands you lemons, make lemonade," is certainly an important concept that often differentiates the most successful from the less successful individual.

Most of us have read that Abraham Lincoln lost repeated elections before he was elected President. He lost a state election, a Congressional election, a Senate election, etc., before finally being victorious in his election for President in 1860. Lesser people than Lincoln might certainly have given up prior to that.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not permit his deteriorating health, or a crumbling economy stop him from taking the bold steps he felt necessary to do the best that he can. Yet, I often speak to people who have lost jobs, often due to no fault of their own, who spend more time complaining and commiserating than they do taking the necessary actions to move ahead with their lives.

I have counseled individuals who ruined their credit and finance, as well as often their family lives, due to a gambling problem. Rather than address the issue, and take whatever necessary steps, even if somewhat uncomfortable to help themselves, state that they enjoy gambling too much to give it up. One must understand that it is almost always impossible to help anyone that does not recognize and admit their own issues, and who wants help.

We can be supportive and helpful to individuals with habits, addictions, dependencies, reliances, or near-addictions, but we must realize that there is a very fine line between supportive and enabling.

I believe that the best thing we can do for others is help them to develop that winning attitude, which includes an unwillingness to give up. If someone gives up, or is unwilling to seek help or counsel, and merely blames others or makes excuses, they will almost never have a winning life.

The Need To Pay Attention To Details

After more than three decades working in, and advising not-for-profit organizations, perhaps the most frustrating and irritating comment, and to me, the most irrational at times, is when I hear individuals in leadership positions either accusing others of micromanaging, or saying that they do not wish to micromanage.

I want to state, in no uncertain terms, that, in the vast majority of cases, these individuals do not even understand either proper management, basic organizational leadership, or what micromanaging really is. To me, it is only micromanaging if a leader takes a disproportionate time reviewing irrelevant minutia, that he can be certain that someone else can handle properly and/ or adequately. However, the major challenge is generally locating someone who a leader can be certain will actually perform the "job" properly. Because many of these "minor" details becoming "building blocks" for an important objective, improper handling of these details often can derail the "bigger picture."

Obviously, a good and effective leader does not get bogged down in minor details. Yet, the most effective leaders agree with Harry Truman's "The buck stops here," philosophy of leadership. I have become convinced that many inadequate leaders use the term "micromanage" and enjoy delegating to others, simply to cover themselves, and to have the ability to say that someone else was responsible for this.

I have also come to believe that it probably is not these "leaders" fault. Most organizations do not correctly identify or qualify potential leaders. They then often claim to have a leadership training program, yet the programs almost invariably are inconsistent from year to year, and are often more rhetoric and cliche, than leadership technique oriented.

I have met very few "born leaders." I am proud to say I have had the opportunity to train and develop numerous individuals who went on to be terrific and effective leaders.

The Purpose Of A Mission Statement

When one reads most organizations mission statement, it is quite long, and often difficult to understand. Studies have shown that using a short, to the point, sound-byte as a mission statement retains the attention of far more people. In general, an organization's mission statement should be thirty seconds or less, catchy, and easy enough to remember that it can be restated simply, even during a casual conversation. When you ask most people about an organization they are involved in, even in a leadership position, one receives many different responses by different people. That creates both a confusion, a lack of focus, and does not "grab" the listener to ask more probing questions.

Ideally, the mission statement should be brief and to the point, and easily repeatable. It should give a general overview, and probably the easiest way to think of it, it should be like a thirty second ad, or sound-byte. That statement should highlight the reason for the organization's existence, and why someone should be interested in it. It should not be a detailed explanation, which is certainly important, but should not be part of the mission statement.

For example, according to Starbucks Coffee's website, their mission statement is, "Our mission: to inspire and nurture the human spirit - one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time." Notice that Starbucks does not go into detail during its mission statement about how it grows its coffees, or any other technical aspect. That information is certainly listed elsewhere on their website, but they do not want to distract a listener or reader from their basic mission.

A mission statement should always be succinct. Island Harvest, a Long Island, New York not- for- profit, lists its mission statement simply as, "Feeding Long Island's hungry." The more succinct and to the point, the more effective the mission statement. Organizations that develop a compelling Mission Statement attract interest in their cause, and that is essential to accomplishing an organization's mission! Mission statements are only as effective as an organization's willingness to live up to its mission. A mission statement helps an organization to clearly focus on what it wants to achieve, and hopefully, it will force leaders to identify effective methods and programs to meet its needs and goals.

Many individuals tend to resist changing an organization's mission statement, regardless of how poorly designed it is. Sometimes it is because of a feeling of tradition or identity. Often, however, it is merely that they do not understand what a true mission statement is. Changing a mission statement does not necessarily mean that an organization changes its mission. Rather, an effective mission statement more clearly identifies what an organization's main thrust is, to those who are not presently involved, and ;potentially might be interested. If a mission statement is not interesting or compelling enough to state in thirty seconds or less, as a sound-byte even during cocktail party conversations, then an organization should review this statement. The better the mission statement, the more interest and discussion the mission of the organization will attract!

The Importance Of Budgeting

Almost all well-run businesses and organizations prepare budgets at least annually. Unfortunately, very often, the budget process becomes more of a formality, required process, or activity, than a useful document. While budgets should be part of a careful and detailed process and analysis of a businesses or organizations needs, and how to get there, it is much more common that the budget is merely a "bunch of numbers" that "have to be" prepared, than anything useful. "Let's just prepare it and get it passed" is an often stated opinion. "It doesn't really matter, because we'll just change it if we need to anyway," is repeated ad nauseum, making the entire process little more than a waste of time and energy.

Dictionary.com defines "budget" as an "estimate of expected income and expenses, and when used as a "verb (used with object)," as "to allot (money, time, etc.). However, the definition does not detail the important functions that a properly prepared budget can and will provide. Budgets should not be merely a bunch of meaningless numbers that have been thrown together to prepare the document. Only if a budget has been prepared utilizing "zero based budgeting" does a budget reach its full potential.

When either preparing or reviewing a budget, first carefully review the income (or revenue) side. How has each line item been calculated? How does each number compared with the actual for each of the last three years? What methods, techniques, or "revenue growers" are to be used in this upcoming cycle? It is important to recognize, when one prepares a budget, to be very conservative with revenue or income estimates and projections, and very aggressive in calculating expenses.

Expense items need to be reviewed very carefully, item by item. Commonly, businesses or organizations use the "previous budget plus" concept, which means it simply takes what was spent (or even worse, projected to be spent) in the previous budget cycle, and a specified percentage is simply added across the board to most expense items. When budgets are prepared this way, they are truly the waste of time and effort mentioned above. However, when each item is analyzed on a "needs" and "effectiveness" basis, one often realizes that monies are expended in many areas that do not provide the required result, while in other areas, more funds may need to be spent. One then also develops the philosophy of "thinking outside the box," and developing creative methods to more effectively spend funds, or "get more bang for the buck." One using this method develops an important document that guides decision making, as well as provides direction. A properly prepared budget should not be revised during its cycle, unless there is some sort of emergency or other form of extraordinary circumstance.

Budgets should always include at least one realistic reserve fund. The reserve fund may be exclusively for unanticipated maintenance and repairs, or for some other unanticipated need. When budgets do not include reserves, they almost invariably need to be tweaked and readjusted during the cycle, thus weakening the intended and important purpose of a properly prepared budget.

Anyone who reviews a budget should ask a lot of questions, and request a detailed budget, as opposed to merely a summary budget. Some of these include; 1) What items make up that line item, and how are they broken down? 2) What alternatives were considered in this area? 3) Have we evaluated alternatives regarding utilities and telephone, etc.? 4) Which program worked the most effectively and why? 5) How do we market, and why do we market the way we do?

The above are simply a sample of some worthwhile questions. The most important thing to do is always ask questions about anything that you do not find clear. Do not be embarrassed - - chances are if you find something confusing, so will others.

Budgets can be the most important process used by a business or organization, or simply an exercise. Each of us owe it to anything we believe in, to explore all alternatives and possibilities. Many nay-sayers like to state that "It's only a small amount. It won't amount to anything- it's not large enough." Nothing could be further from the truth. Budgets are refined by making many small adjustments in multiple areas. You'd be amazed how much the total of all these adjustments add up to. Think of the adage, "You know how you eat an elephant - - one bite at a time!"

Happiness

The Founder of the renowned civic organization, Grand Street Boys, thelate Judge Jonah Goldstein was fond of saying, "Happiness is the one thing in life that multiplies by division. The more you give to others, the more you have for yourself." Goldstein used this expression repeatedly at meetings in the 1940's. If everyone followed this, wouldn't the world be a better place? Dictionary.com offers two definitions for happiness: "1. the quality or state of being happy 2. good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy." At the same time, Dictionary.com offers three definitions of happy: "1.pleased or delighted 2. pleasing 3. bringing good luck; fortunate." Obviously, Judge Goldstein felt strongly that for one to be truly happy, he must repeatedly bring joy to others as well as himself, thus providing one with a sense of joy, pleasure, delight and contentment.

So many people today seem to follow the "What's in it for me?" philosophy. It seems that too many people today often only "do the right thing" if they believe it will somehow materially benefit them. However, when one realizes that many of the wealthiest individuals in the world are also amongst the most miserable, it takes far more than merely the accumulation of material things, or self- satisfaction, to bring about true happiness. How many truly happy people can you honestly say that you know?

Besides being a well known judge in New York, Jonah Goldstein was famous for founding a civic and philanthropic group known as Grand Street Boys. Almost all the members of Grand Street Boys were professionals- - most of which were attorneys. The legal profession has often been much maligned, yet it is one of the first professions or occupations with an organized methodology of "giving back" to the most needy, via the "pro bono" process. Attorneys are regularly expected to, and do, perform a certain amount of "pro bono," or free legal work, for those unable to afford the cost of legal representation. Judge Goldstein encouraged widespread discussion and fabulous debating during the Grand Street Boys meetings, and in an interactive manner, encouraged members to "give back" to society, in any number of manners.

Why are so many "troubled" individuals so very unhappy? Some people have attributed this unhappiness to a variety of items, including financial reversals, financial pressures, "personal problems," or the often-stated, "He's just not a very happy person." Yet, all evidence points to the fact that those individuals that appear to be "happiest" are often those that "give back" more to society and to mankind. "Giving back" does not have to be financial, but it can be. However, merely donating money generally does not create the level of happiness that non- financial volunteerism does. Think about the people you have met who are the happiest - - - aren't they invariably the ones who volunteer more, are more charitable, and/ or more philanthropic? Should this not be a valuable lesson to all of us, and to society, especially in these difficult economic times, when many worthwhile charities so much need assistance?

Judge Goldstein was certainly a sage. He was an incredibly successful man professionally, yet he got more pleasure, fulfillment and happiness from "giving back" than from anything else. Wouldn't our world, especially in these troubling and trying times, be far better off if more of us emulated him?

Blaming Others Is Not Constructive!

In my three decades of consulting in numerous areas, including motivation and self- help, I have come to realize that blaming others rarely accomplishes anything constructive. Many individuals choose to blame others in order to absolve themselves of any blame, often making another individual the "scapegoat" for all issues, woes, and challenges. Dictionary.com defines "scapegoat" as "one who is made to bear the blame for others." This expression had biblical origins, from when Aaron sacrificed a goat for forgiveness of the sins of the Israelites. Today, we
witness scapegoating in many aspects of life. Politicians often "sacrifice" a campaign worker, aide, or even a friend or family member, to shelter themselves from blame. We have all heard of police interrogations when police, reportedly, tell multiple suspects that a "deal" will be made with whichever suspect "comes clean" first.

From an honesty and decency point of view, the practice of scapegoating should be repugnant to any ethical, moral, and honorable person. What ever happened to personal responsibility. We often hear that the "scapegoat" was the "weak link" in the operation, and that by disposing of a certain individual, the operation will function more efficiently.

Very rarely does a subordinate either scapegoat a superior, or even get that opportunity. Those in charge are the ones who generally shelter themselves by saying that a subordinate was not doing his job, or that it wasn't the superior's fault that the subordinate was either incompetent or dishonest. We have even witnessed President Obama throwing both his grandmother, as well as his Reverend "under the bus," in the sense that, during his presidential campaign, he said he even observed a form of racism from his maternal grandmother, and that he did not pay attention to, nor even remember, some of the more controversial statements made by his Reverend.

In the workplace, when a superior (supervisor, manager, or even above) comes "under fire" for nor getting something done properly, or not accomplishing what he should have, often blames a subordinate, and often that subordinate is "forced" to either resign or have his or her employment terminated. While there are certainly times that much of the fault may have been the subordinates, or at least that subordinate contributed to the ineffectiveness by not adequately performing his duties, effective managers effectively oversee what their aides or subordinates are doing, and review and evaluate their work on an ongoing basis, requiring certain tasks accomplished on a timely basis, or, at the very least, receive regular reports (which should include tasks performed, being worked on, anticipated resolution dates, status, and other relevant information). If a subordinate has worked for a superior for more than thirty (but certainly less than sixty days), the superior should always be held accountable for the failings of a superior, unless the superior took effective action in a timely manner. Harry Truman did not believe that "The Buck Stops Here" was merely a sign on his desk, or a clever motto, but rather that it was his obligation to assure that tasks were accomplished as they should be.

It is however, important to realize that there is a difference between scapegoating and rightfully terminating a subordinate because he or she could not get the job done. Proper handling of personnel employed by a superior is that individual's duty, and the superior must be held accountable, if he is lax about assuring that his employees were properly handling tasks assigned. A superior is not responsible merely because an employee makes an error, but becomes responsible when he fails to act in a timely manner to correct the situation.

There is very little in business as cowardly as scapegoating. Unfortunately, it regularly occurs, because, often, either "higher-ups" or someone influential demands "someone's head." Those higher up often automatically believe that by eliminating the supposed "weakest link" the problem will be resolved, should likewise be held responsible for not fully examining the issue. In many cases, the individual who makes another the scapegoat is at least as responsible by not properly overseeing the situation, and being a proper manager!

Critiques Are Positive & Constructive- Criticisms Are Not!

While it is often essential to honestly critique something or someone, very often individuals merely use it as an excuse to criticize something. While a critique reviews something, and can either be positive, negative or a combination, people who merely criticize are very often merely being negative, and intentionally looking for what's wrong. While a critique is often constructive, criticism simply for "criticism's sake" is generally not.

It is almost always easier to criticize, because one can always find some fault or something wrong, if that is one's intent. Very few things or people are perfect in every way. Therefore, it is generally easy to look for what's wrong under any circumstances, even though criticism that is not constructive, and does not give a better viable alternative, often has very little value. When someone critiques, they give an honest evaluation - both the good and the bad - and when they critique properly, they also give recommendations about possible improvements and enhancements.

A criticism merely informs someone that something is "wrong." A critique, on the other hand, discusses what was right as well as what was wrong. Great golfers often have a "swing coach" who gives them a critique about what they see in the swing, and possible ways to improve it. If they were to simply criticize, the coach would simply look for what's wrong, and harp on the negatives. Negative thinking is almost never virtuous nor constructive or helpful.

In all aspects of life, there are people who criticize and there are people who critique. Anyone who wishes to improve his performance appreciates an honest critique. On the other hand, individuals who merely criticize are often "jealous" people who often don't like something either because it hasn't been done that way before, it is innovative, or merely that they didn't think of it. Criticizers are often negative people who look to criticize everything, often as a way of "propping themselves up."

Unfortunately, there are generally far more individuals who merely criticize than those who give valuable critiques. Doers and people who are motivated to get something accomplished must make every effort to stay away from the negative, can't do- oriented people who "drag down" good ideas, by telling you every reason in the world why it can't be done. Those people who merely criticize are generally the people who do very little positive in terms of accomplishment, and use excuse after excuse, and blame others for their own inadequacies.

Stay away from the excuse makers and nay-sayers. They often suffer from terminal "excusitis"! These type of people search for why something cannot be done, or what "might" go wrong, rather than how to get it done in the best way. Excuses and blaming others rarely achieves anything positive.

Preparation For Giving A Seminar

Attendees at a seminar, especially those who have not given one themselves, are generally unaware of what goes into preparing to present a seminar. The presenter must understand the demographics and needs of the attendees, to properly
customize the seminar, so that those attending gain the maximum benefit from attending.

While many individuals present seminars, there is a big difference between a presentation professional and others who merely give occasional presentations. Having given seminars on numerous topics to significantly various size groups, as well as groups with varying interests and demographics, I have established some personal ground rules to assure that my presentation achieves optimum impact.

Some believe that you simply appear the day at the seminar with your Power Point presentation (when I started it was with slides), and that's it. However, everything from the way the Power Point is designed, to how interactive one makes the presentation, needs to be customized to the individual group.

When preparing to present a seminar, I always do the following:

1) Speak to the Seminar organizer, in depth, about such things as what the group wants to gain from the presentation, what areas he wants emphasized (if any), the anticipated demographics of the attendees; the expected turnout, etc.
2) Create an outline before I start of topics I want to cover. I place these on separate 3" X 5" size index cards.
3) Determine the order I want to cover these topics, that I believe will have the greatest impact, as well as create the most interest and attention.
4) Do needed research, get statistics (if necessary), and decide upon what, if any graphics to use.
5) Create a dynamic introduction that sets a powerful tone for the seminar
6) Explain to the group, at the beginning of the seminar, what I am planning to accomplish, and outline the basic topics to be covered.
7) Explain that the seminar will be interactive, and urge participation.
8) Create an opening exercise, survey, "test," etc.
9) Design the PowerPoint, initially in broad strokes.
10) Let the presentation sit for at least 24 hours, and then go through Power Point slides from the beginning.
11) Make modifications as needed.
12) Remember that the intent of the Power Point is to create an outline -- not for the presenter to stand up in front of the group and read the slides to them.
13) Prepare a hand-out outline, and whatever other hand-out materials might be necessary.
14) Wait at least another 24 hours and review again. Make any additional modifications necessary.
15) Create suitable, attractive, and attention-getting, point-making animations.

These recommendations are only a portion of what I do for a typical presentation, but steps I take every time. There are many other aspects of giving the presentation, but being prepared is perhaps the most essential one!

Effective Sales Training Uses Role Playing

Becoming a proficient sales professional takes a commitment to excelling at the skills necessary to maximize results. Contrary to what some people say, almost no one is a "born salesperson," and most people need to learn and then hone the necessary skills. While many claim they have the "secret formula," the most effective way to be successful in sales, is to practice proper techniques. Excelling at sales can be compared to excelling at sports - - it requires first learning the proper and best techniques to get the desired results, and then practicing. Either fortunately or unfortunately, there is no short cut.

One cannot learn how to sell merely by attending classes, reading, or observing others selling. While all of those are important in the orientation and training process, becoming good at sales requires practice and repetition. However, this becomes complicated because if an inexperienced, ill-trained, and unprepared individual attempts to sell before he is ready, often times he "blows" the opportunity with the individual he gave a less than ideal presentation to. For that reason, as well as others, it is essential to develop and use other training and practice methods and techniques.

The best way to be trained and to practice one's sales presentation is by "role playing." Role playing requires the assistance of a trained and proficient sales professional, to oversee the process, and to assure the technique being used is excellent. Just as a tennis player constantly practicing using poor form, or a golfer constantly repeating a less than ideal golf swing, or a baseball player practicing a bad swing, role playing practice is only effective if the technique used is good.

The first step in role playing is that one first assume the part of the customer or client, and that the experienced, proficient sales professional present to him, while one attempts to make it difficult for the professional. After repetition, discussion, and practice, the roles should be reversed, and the new person should now do the presenting to the seasoned individual. It is essential to realize that this is not a one- time role playing practice session, but must be repeated on an ongoing basis, initially multiple times per day, then daily, then perhaps weekly, etc. Even the most seasoned professional must role play on a regular basis, in order to assure that he has not developed habits that weakens his performance. If one thinks about it, that is why actors use writers and directors - - to guide them to their optimal performance.

The first step is to effectively learn everything necessary to sell either the product or service. That includes necessary technical information, introductions, script, listening skills, consultative selling techniques, etc. I recommend reading my Associated Content articles on these topics to assure success. Then, one must learn how to answer and overcome any possible objections. For a review of that techniques, one can review my previously published article on Ezine articles. An effective salesperson also develops the techniques and skills needed to successfully use the fall-back strategy of knowing how to recreate need and give yourself another opportunity.

After all that is learned, re-learned, practiced and re-practiced using role playing effectively, and one is confident in his abilities and techniques, then "a salesperson is born."

Board of Directors Responsibilities

Many people become board members of an organization because they wish to, and feel that they can make a valuable contribution to that organization. Unfortunately, in many cases, those individuals are not properly taught their responsibilities. In the majority of cases, this is not the fault of the individual new board member, but rather the fault either of the organization for not having an adequate training program and manual in place. In other situations, the obstacle is that the individual who was supposed to train this new Board member, either did not, or was not well versed enough himself to do an adequate job.

Board members must know up-front what is expected of them, what the time commitment might be, what expenses might be incurred, if any financial contribution is expected as part of the position, etc. In addition, board members must fully understand their fiduciary responsibility is, and the necessary prerequisites. Fiduciary responsibilities refer to the trust placed in each board member to act responsibility, without conflict, and to educate himself in the financial considerations necessary for the particular organization. A board member must avoid even the appearance of any conflict of interest by recusing himself from voting or discussing any matter that he may have a personal or financial conflict in.

Board members must also remember to operate using the "prudent man rule," or investing or using organization's monies only in a manner that a prudent (or careful, conservative) person would. The board member must remember that while one may consider something suitable personally, the risk one is willing to assume personally, with ones own personal funds, might not be suitable for an organization. For example, while an individual may have considered it appropriate to have invested personal funds with Bernard Madoff, it was not appropriate for organizations to decide to invest money with him. Even if the Madoff investments were legitimate and truly profitable, most experts would not consider it "prudent" for an organization to invest in any "hedge fund," because of the inherently risky nature of that kind of investment and the lack of oversight regarding hedge funds.

A board member must perform whatever duties, in terms of committee work, commitments, leading by example, etc., might be necessary to enhance the organization's viability and performance. Board members generally assume the fiscal responsibility of evaluating budgets, and understanding whatever nuances are most important and unusual and specific to the particular organization. Board members must question all aspects of a budget, until completely satisfied that all possible alternatives have been considered and that the budget is in the best interests of the organization. A board member must insist upon budgets being prepared using "zero-based budgeting" methodology. Investopedia.com defines "zero based budgeting" (ZBB) as "a method of budgeting in which all expenses must be justified for each new period." It "starts from a 'zero base' and every function within an organization is analyzed for needs and costs." While zero-based budgeting often lowers expenses by eliminating across-the-board percentage increases, it is, by its very nature, more time-consuming. Because of that, many organizations opt to only follow zero-based budgeting every few years, assuming that the amount of annual savings does not justify the expense. While there is no doubt that it is a time-consuming process, those organizations that are dutiful in following this technique, are generally run the most effectively and efficiently, while those that opt to do this only periodically, tend to continuously procrastinate and delay between budgets when zero-based is once again utilized. Using zero-based budgets is not only cost-effective, but it has the added benefit of forcing Board members to "think outside the box," and actually analyze cost/ benefits, and alternative ways of doing things.

Many organizations use their board as a "training ground" to develop future leaders of the organization. This makes it even more important that board members be properly trained and indoctrinated about all areas involved regarding the organization. After having consulted to numerous organizations over the past three decades, I have witnessed that organizations that assure that their Board is effective are almost always more effectively led. Unfortunately, as in many other areas related to leadership training as it relates to organizations, most do not adequately train their Board's either. An effective Board is even more important during periods when an organization may have a leader or leaders that are not as "strong" and effective as may be optimum.

Why It Seems Like Nothing Is Ever Accomplished?

Nearly everyone who has been involved in a leadership position with most organizations eventually faces the same reality, which is that, in too many cases, excessive amount of time and effort is spent on the inconsequential, often mostly meaningless, and menial issues, and not nearly enough emphasis is devoted to the truly relevant challenges.

In reviewing three decades of correspondence, notes and files, related to numerous organizations, and especially reviewing minutes from meetings, it is amazing how many times certain issues are discussed, over and over again, every year. Recently, I was sorting out one such file, when I noticed that meeting after meeting, year after year, the same issues were discussed. Even more disconcerting was the fact that because most organizational leadership is temporary, finite and transitional, in many cases, the organizations start each time "from scratch." Is it any wonder, really, that so little seems to ever get accomplished?

Most individuals that ascend to an organization's leadership are well meaning people, but that really "do not have a clue" what is needed, expected, or should be done. They neither understand the process, the ramifications, nor the necessities of leadership. Because the vast majority of organizations do not have effective leadership training, this tends to be a recurring issue and challenge. When I am eventually called in to observe and consult, I consistently am told that the organization is well run, and only needs some minor "tweaking." I am often told that they do run leadership seminars on a fairly regular basis, and that their leadership is strong. Unfortunately, however, in most cases, what I am being told is a leadership seminar, is often merely informational, or an indoctrination or orientation. In order to be considered a leadership seminars, the sessions must be interactive, put potential leaders on the spot, and make the attendees both think and understand "problem solving." True leadership training teaches skills such as basic negotiating, staff utilization and limitation, staff training, expectations, qualifying, locating and identifying future leaders, etc.

Training in leadership is not a one-time panacea. It is not a "one size fits all" situation. It is not for everyone. It should be limited to those identified as past, present, future or potential leaders.

In most cases, training should be ongoing, and done in stages. It should be something that attendees perceive as necessary, important, valuable and beneficial. It must teach "hands on" techniques, decision making, "visioning," and implementation. It must explain that leadership is often lonely, and should never be a popularity contest.

Until the methodology is in place, and leaders follow efficient and effective leadership techniques, many of us will continue to observe that, in many organizations, very little seems to get accomplished. However, as sad as that is, many untrained leaders delude themselves into believing that they are being constructive. Many of these untrained leaders resist training because they seem to believe that their experience means that "they are the experts and know it all." When one has consulted and been involved in this field as long as I am, hears that, he understands that mere experience is far different from true expertise. Until the proper methods and techniques are in place, organizations will suffer from their lack of accomplishment, and thus their mission, regardless of how important and significant, will be far more difficult to accomplish.

Strategic Planning Basics

Wikipedia defines "strategic planning" as "an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital and people."

Unfortunately, I have also observed that the term, "strategic planning" is often also one of the most abused terms. Many individuals use a supposed strategic planning process as an excuse to promote a specific agenda, and find the guise of strategic planning to be an available manipulative ploy. In three decades of working with organizations, I have found very few that adequately perform a continuous strategic plan.

Before the strategic planning process can truly be effective, the objectives of the organization must be clearly identified in detail. All aspects of those objectives, and the needs of the organization must be identified. For this project to be worthwhile, the organization must be willing to "leave no stone unturned," and have no "sacred cows." Strategic planning means to look completely at all aspects, and come up with a "best practices" method and most realistic approach.

An organization needs to agree upon goals that need to be addressed. Goals can be thought of as the end result that the organization wishes to accomplish. In addition, each concept must be evaluated on a cost/ benefit basis, and weighed in terms of the probability of achieving the desired results.

What are the priorities of the organization? What are the organizations assets and liabilities? How strong is the membership base, and how has those numbers changed in the last few years? Does the organization seem to have a smooth transition from leader to leader? Would an unbiased observer describe the organization's leadership as strong or weak? What are the prospects for the upcoming leadership? What leadership training is done at an ongoing base? Does the organization clearly articulate its mission and goals?

Organizations must be willing to fully evaluate all approaches and alternatives. They must be creative in terms of "brainstorming" and thinking outside the box. Too many organizations get "hung up" on some aspect of the way they "have always done things."

Another important thing to evaluate in the strategic planning process is alternative methods and approaches. Organizations must find not only one method or plan of approach, but also secondary and tertiary approaches as well. Each approach must be evaluated in terms of costs and benefits, assets and liabilities, chances of success, etc. Each approach must also be accompanied by a carefully prepared budget, where worst-case scenarios for expenses are used, and the least optimistic income projections used as well. Many organizations do the opposite, and then when either optimistic revenues, or low-balled expenses are not achieved, the organization dooms itself to failure!

Strategic planning is essential for an organization. However, leaders must not simply use this as an exercise, but rather as a carefully planned approach to make the organization the best that it can possibly be.

How To Identify The Best Qualified Executive Director?

Many not-for-profit organizations decide they need to hire individuals to serve as their Executive Director. Unfortunately, they often do not use the best possible methodology to identify their optimum individual. These organizations often base their selection on something other than the needed criteria to optimally serve in the position. Before hiring an Executive Director, every organization should clearly and realistically determine its needs, and what they need an Executive Director to do. Many organizations hire an Executive Director, and then have this individual serve as an Executive Secretary or Administrator, than as an Executive Director.

Organizations should remember that an effective Executive Director should not, and will not end up costing the organization anything in net terms. A good Executive Director should always more than pay for himself in a combination of efficiencies made, cost savings, and increased revenues, as well as invaluable knowledge and expertise. If the Executive Director cannot do that for an organization, that organization would be better off merely hiring an Administrator/ Executive Secretary, at a far lowest salary.

Some of the qualities that an Executive Director should possess include:

(1) He must an excellent multi- tasker. An effective Executive Director should be involved in many programs, projects, and efforts simultaneously, effectively and efficiently.

(2) He must be a positive thinker. The attitude and aura of an Executive Director is reflected in everything he does, and unless the individual has a positive, can- do attitude, any negativity will be felt by others and hinder progress.

(3) He must be Action Plan orientated. An effective Executive Director thinks things through, and devises step by step effective strategies for implementation.

(4) He must be a take- charge type of individual. Executive Directors must understand that there is a time for delegating, but that there is also a "roll up your sleeves" time.

(5) Executive Directors must never blame others. They must be willing and able to act, and take responsibility for their actions, and be willing and able to defend their reasoning.

(6) An effective Executive Director must fully understand the entire budgeting process, and must be able to both create a meaningful budget, as well as analyze strengths and weaknesses in the documents, and understand how to modify.

(7) He must possess excellent interpersonal skills.

(8) He must be an effective listener.

(9) Executive Directors must be professional negotiators. They must be able to negotiate with vendors, venues, and in a number of other areas, as is needed by the specifics of the organization.

(10) He must be technologically knowledgeable, and have a working knowledge and understanding of all needed computer and technology programs. While being tech savvy, an effective Executive Director is not overly "hooked on tech." He must remember that people are the most important aspect of any organization.

(11) He must be able to effectively deal with a Board of Directors, as well as volunteer leaderships. He must also be able to be an important resource to leadership.

(12) He must have the strength of his convictions, and be willing to speak up and let the organization's leadership know both when and why he might disagree.

(13) He must be a good communicator.

(14) Excellent written and oral skills are certainly an asset.

(15) Being able to conduct training, seminars, etc., is something that the ideal candidate should possess.

(16) An Executive Director must have a clear vision, and be able to concisely communicate his vision to others.

(17) He must be a quick learner.

(18) He should be fiscally conservative, yet understand that there are times when expenditures are necessary.

(19) He must be detail- orientated, and not "drop the ball." This individual must be willing and able to thoroughly follow through.

(20) He must be ethical, honest and honorable.

(21) He must be willing to go outside his "comfort zone."

(22) He must feel comfortable approaching others.

These are just some of the essential and important qualities that every Executive Director should possess. Because different organizations have different needs and requirements, each organization must tweak the above list to meet its specific needs. However, this list is certainly a good start!

Organizations Must Make Members A Top Priority

Successful organizations are those whose leadership realizes that they must prioritize their members and donors. Too many organizations are perceived as taking their members for granted, and without members,
organizations fail! Organizations must put members and donors first! Membership and donor satisfaction are the highest priority.

Many organizations put too much of the communication with members in the hands of paid staffs. However, while staff contact is certainly important and relevant, most members and donors prefer contact with \volunteer leaders. President Clinton was famous for speaking to the public and indicating that he felt their pain. Most people want others to be empathetic, and have certain shared experiences. Since, in most organizations, members share certain common interests, either business, occupational, religious, social, or political, they only perceive this empathy when it comes from a "peer," in this case a volunteer leader. Think of it as the "been there, done that" perception of reality, but it is far easier in most cases for volunteer leaders to effectively communicate than it is for paid staff!

Paid staff is an important part, however, in the overall member relations/ communication arena. It is essential that paid staff answer the organization's telephones in a professional, helpful, caring and attentive manner, and is responsive to the needs of members. Staff must send out any item requested in a timely manner, and always keep its promises made to members. Unfortunately, due to a number of reasons, including economic, educational, social, training, etc., it is often difficult to have a consistently efficient and reliable staff. In today's technological age, with the availability of personal data devices, such as Blackberry's, etc., there is no excuse for staff not to reply to e-mails in a prompt, reliable manner, all the time. When staff is constantly making excuses, and not getting necessary items done, organizations must consider either formal training or changing staff.

Member relations should be far more than a mere cliche. Member relations means opening up lines of communication, engaging membership in dialogue, requesting feedback, offering member benefits, and most importantly, truly caring about the needs of members. Leaders must make every effort to assure that the organization continuously evolve, without losing its identity. Leaders must communicate clearly why the organization is both relevant and important to members, and why members are so important to the organization.

Unfortunately, I have witnessed far too many organizations that have "lost their way" over the past three decades of organizational and management consulting. Leaders must constantly revisit the idea, "Why should someone want to belong and be active in this organization?" Organizations whose leaders do this are invariably the strongest!

Basics Of Successful Negotiating

Effective negotiation is dependent on a number of key factors. One of the least discussed, yet most essential, is mutual trust and understanding. Without these, the probability of successful negotiations is significantly minimized. Too often, negotiators enter into a negotiation with an adversarial relationship, and many negotiators make very little attempt to openly and adequately communicate with their counterpart.

Over the past three plus decades, I have successfully negotiated numerous contracts and agreements in a variety of different industries. Without a doubt, negotiations go best when they begin casually, with the negotiators taking some time to get to know their counterpart. Most professional negotiators understand this reality, but sometimes a negotiator "postures" for either political or other reasons. When that happens, it often creates an aura of frustration, and negotiations often break down into personality conflicts.

The most effective negotiations always begin with negotiators communicating openly. While some negotiators like to "play hardball," it is almost never productive. Open communication requires that negotiations follow certain steps. These include:

(1) Both sides fully explain their needs and requirements. If there are budgetary issues, these should be explained upfront, so that there are no misunderstandings.
(2) Both sides need to be honest with each other. Being honest doesn't mean giving in to everything the other side wants, but understanding fully what is be requested, and why.
(3) If this is either a hotel or food and beverage negotiation, the facility must understand what is being asked for. Are there alternatives that will make it less expensive for the facility, thus permitting it to pass along that savings to the prospective client?
(4) In the hotel/ food and beverage scenario, if a hotel believes it cannot deliver what is being requested, at the quality level and price point requested, it should state that upfront.
(5) If either side is negotiating with more than one party simultaneously, that should be fully disclosed. The negotiator should also explain why this is being done.
(6) When one side is unreasonable, negotiations usually fail. Often, the worst case scenario is that the two sides agree, and that the deal is so one-sided that the other side is unable to deliver when and what is needed and was promised.
(7) Negotiators should only promise what they can deliver.
(8) Negotiators should have sufficient authority to make the necessary agreements and frameworks of the deal. Too many levels of negotiation is generally catastrophic to a good end result.
(9) Negotiators should be direct and to the point.
(10) Specific needs and/or requirements must be disclosed upfront.
(11) Each side should submit their requests for concessions from the other.
(12) The best result of any negotiation is when it is "win-win."
(13) The best result of any negotiation, in the long term, results in a deal that is fair to both sides.

Most individuals are not good negotiators. Amateur negotiators often destroy doable deals! Parties to negotiations should both use professional negotiators, who understand what needs to be done to "hammer out a deal." Please read my Associated Content articles on various aspects of negotiating.

Basics of Influencing Others

While each of us hear and see many people on a regular basis, only a very few of these individuals have a positive influence, while others we either ignore, or often think of negatively. The type of impact we have on others, as well as how our message is received, is often determined by a variety of different variables, and how others perceive us, and what our message and persona are.

In order to have a meaningful impact on others, it is often necessary to first gain the respect of the other party. The entire process generally begins at the first contact. Studies have indicated that most people gain a "first impression," and that in a large majority of cases, that first impression lingers. Therefore, if someone wants to have a chance of exerting some influence over another, he must understand certain basic principles.

When one first meets someone, what impression does the other party get? Do they believe you are serious or a "clown," intelligent or not very "sharp," kind or mean, friendly or aloof, caring or inconsiderate, fair or prejudiced, etc? Many incredible books and articles have been written on this and other related subjects by such individuals as Dale Carnegie, Napoleon Hill, Og Magdino, etc. All of them emphasize certain basics or fundamentals, and emphasize how you relate to others and its impact.

Do you make confident and reassuring eye contact? Do you have a firm handshake? Do you have a welcoming personality? Do you appear to care about others? Are you a good listener, appearing to care about others and their needs? Do you prefer to listen, or do you simply ask a question, and then not let the other person answer? Do you show respect for the other person by respecting their right to express their view fully, paying attention, and not interrupting?

Few things are as annoying as the individual who asks how someone is, and then does not wait for a response. Few things make someone feel more ill at ease than to have a conversation with someone who appears distracted, preoccupied, or disinterested.

Most people's favorite topic is themselves. Even the shyest and most reserved individual will generally feel comfortable talking about something they are comfortable and knowledgeable about, and most people feel they know themselves (even if they are actually delusional and don't have a clue). Therefore, the best way to make a good first impression is to do the following:

(1) Greet others openly and in a welcoming manner.
(2) Maintain eye contact.
(3) A warm handshake, and a friendly "look"/ expression.
(4) Let the other person talk about himself.
(5) Actually listen, pay attention, and truly care.
(6) Ask some simple, probing questions, and listen to the answers.
(7) Try to remember details, by using "memory tricks."
(8) Mention the other person's name repeatedly, and remember the name.
(9) Make mental notes about the other person, and as soon as you get a chance, write down a few key notes about the other person. The next time you see that person, begin the conversation by asking the other person something related to your previous conversation.
(10) Speak about topics the other person is interested in, and rather than voicing your opinion, ask questions about theirs.

These steps are only a start. However, while making a positive first impression will not guarantee that you will be able to influence someone else, making a negative impression will almost always guarantee that you will not!

Polls Are Often Wrong

Many observers of political campaigns spend an inordinate amount of time and effort "poll watching." This becomes increasingly tedious and misleading because there are sometimes wide differences between the results reported by various polling organizations. Some of this is due to statistical error, and others due to the structure and wording of the poll. I have come to believe, however, that one of the major factors often overlooked in reviewing these polls, is that individuals responding to polls often give either tentative, partial, uncertain responses, and in some cases, I believe they outright lie.

Historically, as election dates near, polling margins narrow. To a large degree, that is because a large number of individuals are still party loyal, even if they are dissatisfied with the performance of their political party. Often, initially, opposition candidates poll very well as an anti-incumbent vote. However, when voters get a chance to think about it more thoroughly, they often realize that they also do not agree with the opposition candidate, or that what he wishes to do, might be worse.

In reality, the only poll that really matters is the polling booth on Election Day. Amongst nations that have democratic elections, Americans tend to vote in far lower percentages of eligible voters, than in other nations. Many individuals previously polled, who are disgruntled with the incumbent, or disillusioned with the state of the nation or locality, do not have strong pro-opposition candidate feelings either. I believe this, to a somewhat large degree, often accounts for low voter turnouts on Election Day.

These advance polls have been shown, however, to often have an impact on voter turnout. A close advance poll generally results in a larger voter turnout, while a poll that indicates a "landslide," often reduces voter turnout. Many potential voters either feel their vote doesn't count, or that they really don't particularly like either candidate.

Another factor that often impacts turnout, especially on the west coast, is the results announced earlier from east coast races. Often, voters go with the trends, and if results from the earlier closed polls on the east coast seem to indicate a trend (or that the media interprets it that way), it often has a significant impact on later voter turnout on the west coast. In many past elections, many experts believe this behavior had a significant impact on election results.

It is important to vote, if only for the fact that if you vote, it gives you the "right to complain," while if you do not, you may have been "part of the problem." Don't pay that much attention to pre- election polling. If you believe that one candidate is better qualified, and will better represent the interests of his constituents, I urge you to go to the polls on Election Day, and vote!