Postcards As Effective And Cost-Effective Marketing Method

With so many alternatives available, it is often asked which method of marketing is most effective. Because of escalating costs, many businesses and organizations have opted for predominantly electronic marketing (internet), but those using exclusively electronic market often complain that they are not getting the response they anticipated. While some corporations are successful using predominantly internet marketing, the most successful "Web" campaigns are those that use other media to direct the target audience online. Some of those media include television, radio, print media (newspapers and magazines), advertising (including banners) on other Web sites, and direct mail marketing.

Although internet marketing is quite effective in attracting certain target markets, the exclusive use of internet marketing often excludes a number of potential "targets." Certain products directed toward certain generations of individuals can be marketed primarily by electronic marketing (however, there is still the need to direct the target market to the site that one wants to market), but other products, and many services need more attention to "conventional" marketing.

Many organizations have dramatically reduced printing and mailing as their primary method of "outreach," predominantly because of the escalating costs of printing and postage. Some then substitute an almost exclusive electronic "outreach" method, and many are then disappointed to find, for example, that attendance at events and conferences, as well as membership dues and donations collections end up suffering, as a result. While the elaborate multi-colored, expensive paper, expensive to mail magazines and brochures produced years ago usually are difficult to justify, less expensive printing and mailing should often be considered.

However, any mailing should effectively "sell the sizzle", so that even a casual glance by a viewer would "catch the eye" and interest the recipient. Statistics indicate that conventional mailing in envelopes can be quite ineffective, because it is time consuming to produce and distribute, can be costly, and does not get enough "views." The reality with "envelope" mailing is that a large number of recipients never even open the envelope, considering it to be "junk," and never bothering to view the contents and message. On the other hand, postcards can be quite effective, because the message cannot be easily avoided by the viewer, and they are relatively inexpensive to produce and distribute.

An organization has two choices in terms of the type of postcard to send, regular-size or over-sized. While some argue that over-sized get more "views," studies have indicated that both sizes, if produced correctly, receive approximately the same response. The huge advantage of regular sized postcards is that they are significantly less expensive to mail.

The most effective postcards are those that are printed on both sides, with a "sell the sizzle," catchy phrase on the address side, and the words "See Other Side" printed cleverly. On the other side, a very brief, to the point message, emphasizing the main message, and providing a phone number, an e-mail contact address, and a website to go to for details. Depending on the type of mailing, typical response rates on organizational postcard mailings range from about one to eight percent. In addition, an effective ;postcard campaign can be produced for approximately $350 per thousand pieces (even less if not-for-profit bulk rates are taken advantage of), including printing and postage.

Organizations that really want to optimize their results should use creative postcard marketing, in conjunction with internet promotions. Postcards are both cost effective and productive, and will improve results of any organization's marketing!

Things Donors Should Consider

Many individuals are uncertain which non-profit to support because they don't know which will most effectively use the monies. There are a number of factors to consider, and donors are correct to be careful. Simply because a charity supports causes that the donor believes in, may not be a sufficient reason for a donor to financially support that charity. In some cases, it might be best for a donor to support a larger, better known not-for-profit, while there are other circumstances when it may make more sense to support a smaller, local charity.

Some of the essential questions donors should ask before donating, include:

(1) What percentage of donations go towards actual programs or grants, and what percentage goes towards administration? There are great variances in the actual percentages that go towards each, and it is extremely important that organizations keep their overheads down. Donors must also clearly see that an organization has accomplished something constructive in its mission in the recent past, and on an ongoing basis, and has a well formulated plan as to how it intends to use future funds received.

(2) In addition to cash, what other donations does the organization accept? Does the organization accept items like cars and boats, and then liquidate them for cash? Does the organization take securities (stocks, bonds, etc), and what is the organization's policy regarding holding onto or selling the security? What is their investment reasoning? Does the organization contact manufacturers to supply relevant products in lieu, or in addition to cash donations?

(3) If the organization gives grants, what is the size of their corpus? What are the investments being used? Is the investment portfolio appropriate? What is the investment philosophy - - - preservation of capital; income; income with safety; growth; mixed? Who manages the portfolio and how often is it reviewed?

(4) Does the donor share a common ethic or goals or vision with the organization?

(5) Has the organization consistently filed timely Form 990's with the Internal Revenue Service, and the state, when necessary? Are the organizations financial statements and filings readily available for viewing by potential donors?

(6) Are the "books" reviewed, audited, etc.? How often? What is the report?

(7) Does the organization openly disclose its financials, including Profit and Loss Statements; Balance Sheets; and Investment Portfolio (including comparisons and actuals for a minimum of three years)?

(8) What is the organization's Grant Process, if it gives grants? Who determines who gets grants, and what is the application process? Is the Application Process publicized and open?

(9) Does the organization's operations, actions and activities appear transparent?

(10) Donors should contact several previous recipients and ask questions about their experience with the organization, etc?

(11) Donors should request permission to contact other previous donors, so they can check on their experience with the organization.

(12) Are there any apparent conflicts of interest between the Board members, Trustees, Officers, Staff Members, and projects/ programs the organization is involved in?

(13) Does the organization have any complaints filed against it?

Organizations should welcome donors that ask these questions, and actively assist the potential donor in feeling comfortable with the organization. Non- profits must realize that there is lots of competition for donations, and the non-profit that is most transparent and cooperative will make most donors the most comfortable.

Non-Profit Trustees Fiduciary Responsibilities

While each individual is entitled to make his own investment judgments regarding appropriate vehicles for his personal funds and accounts, not-for-profit trustees are entrusted with specific fiduciary responsibilities. These fiduciary responsibilities have been established to ensure the safety, stability and security of not-for-profit's funds. Unfortunately, these rules have been rather general rather than specific in most cases, and that has led to financial disaster for certain not-for-profits. In my many decades of consulting to not-for-profit organizations, I have found that most Trustees or Board members appear to be completely unfamiliar with how serious their fiduciary responsibilities are, and should be taken.

We have all heard and read about the impact of the monies managed by Bernie Madoff, on not-for-profits that invested in those vehicles. Putting aside the issue of the legality and legitimacy of Madoff's transactions, many believe that hedge funds in general, because of their sometimes speculative nature, and lack of certain controls that other investments possess, would be inappropriate vehicles under any circumstances for any not-for-profit. The logic behind these rules is that while an individuals who speculates with his own monies only impacts himself and his family, non-profits that speculate may put at risk monies that have been entrusted to it to serve specific causes or missions.

TheFreeDictionary.com defines the "prudent man rule" as "the requirement that a trustee, investment manager of pension funds, treasurer of a city or county, or any fiduciary (a trusted agent) must only invest funds entrusted to him/ her as would a person of prudence, i.e. with discretion, care and diligence. Thus solid "blue chip" securities, secured loans, federally guaranteed mortgages, treasury certificates and other conservative investments providing a reasonable return, are within the prudent man rule."

The "Prudent Man Rule" has been the standard since around 1830, when there was a dispute settled by the Massachusetts courts. There have been many adaptations since then, because of the different and increased number of types of vehicles available to invest in today. One of the updates has been, for example, to include the concept of "diversification" into the definition, so an organization is not over- exposed to one particular investment. Thus, if we apply that towards the Madoff investments, even if the trustees felt that the investments might have some appropriateness as one of their investments, the many non- profits who were ruined or nearly ruined financially by holding this investment were obviously not being prudent by having a very large percentage in these investments. Trustees must not be blamed when an unforeseen circumstance causes otherwise suitable investments to financially implode, but the trustees must be held to the intent of the "prudent man rule" when making investment decisions.

Trustees must re-examine investments on a recurring basis, and assure that any changing circumstances has not changed the suitability status of a particular investment. They must insist that the portfolios be diversified as to type of investment (common stocks, preferred stocks, treasury bonds, corporate bonds, etc., as appropriate), industries invested in (no over-concentration on what investment area, e.g. technology, health, pharmaceuticals, etc.), and that the portfolio is suitably diverse. Many organizations have begun to utilize some facsimile of what is known as the "20/5 Rule." This means that, for example, that no more than twenty percent of the portfolio be invested in any one industry, and that no more than five percent be invested in any single investment.

Trustees have the fiduciary responsible to assure compliance with the "prudent man rule." This is important, not solely for legal reasons, but also for moral, ethical, and safety reasons as well.

Beware Of Leaders Using Revisionist History

Many leaders "remember" the past in a manner that puts them in the "best" light. While a few simply misstate the facts, the majority convince themselves that they took a position that they truly did not. In my three decades to working with not-for-profit organizations, I have discovered that the large majority of leaders want to avoid blame for something that did not work out, either because of an action taken, or one that probably should have been taken that they avoided. It has amazed me how many of these leaders recall "history" in a manner somewhat different from reality. However, in all fairness, much of this is probably because of these leaders original perceptions of the situation.

Whenever one leads an organization, there will always be certain things that do not work out either as hoped for, or as anticipated. To a large degree, these leaders made their original decisions based on their own perceptions, biases, prejudices, and prejudgments. One of the most consistent errors made by volunteer leaders is that they do not effectively listen, nor are they properly trained and thus adept at the decision making process. Most leaders cannot visualize that there are always ramifications of every action or inaction. Leaders must be trained to "play the devil's advocate," and analyze as many possible scenarios as possible. Yet, because most organizations are sorely lacking when it comes to both their leadership training efforts, as well as their leadership candidate vetting, more issues than should occur, happen, and many leaders are ill- equipped, or flexible enough, to adapt to changes. In the past three decades, I have trained many individuals about leadership and leadership training that also pertinent to this behavior.

Instead of admitting that all humans need training, and every individual has certain strengths and weaknesses, many leaders develop a defense mechanism, to basically "cover their behinds" if the chosen action (or inaction) backfires, or simply doesn't end up as desired and intended. The challenge organizations face is that generally the individual chosen for a leadership position excels in his own field, and is often used to being the "go-to" person in that setting. Many of these individuals begin to believe that because they are so intelligent, talented, and respected in their full-time endeavors, that their expertise will also transfer to organizational leadership. However, those of us who have observed organizations and organizational dynamics for a considerable period of time, realize that often, organizational leadership, requires a different skill-set. Finding an individual with good personal and background traits, experience, and expertise, who will also be willing to be trained professionally in organizational leadership, is often a challenging and somewhat awkward task. That is probably one of the main reasons that most organizations avoid true leadership training, rather putting together their own unproven training, as if "reinventing the wheel" is the way to go. Undoubtedly, the most effective training programs are the ones that utilize tried and proven techniques and methods. This type of behavior should be properly addressed by organization's implementing professionally designed leadership training programs.

Revisionist history may make the individual feel better, and appear better initially. However, it does not change the realities or the facts, nor address the needed actions that must be taken when something does not work out as intended.

Stop Fighting The Same Battles Over Again

Many individuals continue to bring up old events and occurrences, to defend present points of view, and actions. Not only is that unproductive, but it is also unhealthy and unwise. Individuals who take this course of action constantly rehash old "stuff," and seem to be constantly "re-fighting old battles." These individuals should learn and understand that one's perception of events is generally not the same as someone else's, and that circumstances, situations, and people change and adapt constantly. Often the event occurred because of a differing point of view or perspective, and that one's opinion of another might also change over time.

Especially with people under twenty-five, old memories of someone or something else could have been greatly impacted by exceptional circumstances that either party experienced at that point in time. Often, one individual "matures" sooner than another, or one's tolerance of a particular behavior might change over time. It is also possible that one or both individuals might have changed over the course of time. If that were not the fact, we would all have many of the same friends throughout our lives, yet most of us do not.

The high percentage of divorces is another evidence of how circumstances and perspectives change over time. People grow apart, points of views change, and many individuals are far less than tolerant about changes

It is important that people learn the importance of "letting it go." It is not constructive to permit things, events, or people continue to impact and bother you. Rather than taking satisfaction from 'holding a grudge," and begrudging others imperfections, and what you perceive as improprieties, or what many of today's generation refer to as a "Dis," it is far more constructive to "move on." One need not once again become friends with the other individual, but continuous anger is often an unhealthy situation. It is far better to merely accept that most people have imperfections, and one will rarely like everything someone else says, or does, so just "let it go." The concept of a "Dis," which is short for disrespect or disrespectful behavior or action, is often far more perception related than actual.

My best advice is simply strive to be the best individual you can be, and to concern yourself less with other's behavior, which are beyond your control. This is often a difficult thing to do, but is almost always healthier for you, and for getting anything accomplished, than "harping" on the past. There is no magic formula for regaining peace and calm from a stressful situation, but "moving on" is generally the best course of action.

Too many people worry about being friends or being liked. It is my belief that the only one that you truly have any control over, in the long run and the big picture, is you. Try it, and you will notice that it is a workable, more relaxing and productive course of action.

Men Will Probably Understand Women

It is probably an understatement to say that most men and most women approach much of life from different perspectives. There are far many more differences between the sexes than simply the obvious biological factors. Anyone who observes female and male behavior will notice that there are major differences in the manner of social interaction, conversations, emotions, needs, and overall demeanor, as well as how each gender generally approaches getting things done. While, of course, there are exceptions to these guidelines, this article examines the common differences.

One of my closest friends, who has been married for close to thirty five years, insists that he will never be able to understand female logic, and that the longer he is married, and the older he gets, he has become increasingly convinced that the expression, "female logic" might actually be an oxymoron. I am equally certain that many women feel the same way about men.

In general, women need to have conversations far more than men. When couples go out to eat together, the women are generally non-stop conversation, barely stopping to take the breath. The men, on the other hand, generally make one or two often snide comments or remarks, or merely look at each other in a "knowing" manner. When women need to use the "powder room," they almost invariably travel in pairs. One rarely sees that kind of social interaction between men, requiring to "use the facilities."

I have often heard women say to men, "You don't understand," and, in most cases, they are right. More women think or react emotionally than men do. Most women enjoy social interactions with other women, such as book clubs, etc., while most men interact with other men via athletics, drinking, or gambling.

Have you ever observed the average length of time most women spend on the telephone, compared to most men? Have you noticed how women generally ask far different questions, and often have far different concerns, than most men? Why is it that most women appear far more "family oriented" than most men?

It is often difficult for a male to be able to understand something from a female perspective, just as I'm sure it is also difficult for females to see the male perspective. Whether it is hormonal differences,different social upbringing, some other factor or factors, or some combination, it is quite rare than men and women approach matters from the same perspective. There are often differences between the sexes in terms of concentration, ability to multi-task, emotional detachment, emotions, intelligence in certain concentrated areas (in facts, studies have often shown that males are stronger in some areas, and females in others), creativity, interests, social interaction, personality, etc. I believe the probability is that since men have never truly understood women, nor women men, that this scenario will probably continue.

You Can Only Help If Someone Wants Your Help

Whether it involves personal matters, or organizational leadership issues, one can only help someone who wants your help. Alcoholics Anonymous and similar organizations understand that their fine programs will only help those who first admit need. Similarly, often the leaders of organizations who need the most assistance and guidance, can only get help if they are willing to both listen and welcome advice.

One of the principal reasons that many things do not actually occur until there is a crisis or near- crisis situation, is that many individuals avoid making any type of decision, especially difficult ones. A parent cannot help or get help for an angry child until that child admits he has a "problem." A loved one cannot help or get help for someone with either an alcohol or drug-related dependency or other issue until the individual admits he needs help. Often, this admission does not occur until the individual reaches "ground bottom." The most ineffective organizational leader, someone who it is clear and apparent that needs advice and guidance from others with more knowledge, expertise, and ability, will often be unwilling to accept advice until there is a near "crisis."

In all of these situations, needy individuals often become resistant, belligerent, and "turn off" to anything or anyone that they interpret as being "against" them. It is often related to a sense of inferiority that causes a resistance to anything the individual interprets as being oppositional.

Unfortunately, just as the addicted, dependent, or other needy individual waits a long time (often too long) to seek and accept assistance and help, ineffective organizational leaders behave in a similar matter. Where an individual that needs but doesn't accept help harms himself in many cases, the "leader" that doesn't "face the reality" of his ineffective leadership, in many cases causes damage (sometimes irreparable or nearly irreparable) to his organization. Since this occurs quite often in organizations, it is extremely important that organizations develop a better procedure and technique to qualify and locate their leaders. In addition, organizations need to emphasize the multi- staged approach to leadership training; (1) initial or entry level leadership training; (2) up-and-coming, local level, or intermediate leadership training; (3) moving on up, or advanced leadership training; (4) challenges of leadership or elite leadership training.

Until both individuals and ineffective leaders realize that advice is important and can be used positively, and that critiques can be helpful, and that none of us are perfect, needy individuals, in their personal lives, as well as ineffective, needy leaders will continue along a road to potential destruction.

Planning Is The Key To Getting It Done

As a consultant, professional negotiator, convention/ conference/ event organizer/ planner, and executive for over three decades, I have consistently observed that one of the greatest stumbling blocks to successfully achieving any goals, plans or objectives, is a lack of either understanding or appreciation of the importance of planning. Too many individuals seem to believe, or at least act like they seem to believe, that things will just happen and come together by themselves. Unfortunately or fortunately, planning is essential for most successful endeavors or ventures, and not only must one plan, but generally it is imperative to plan in advance.

There are some who have called me too detail-oriented, and have accused me from everything from micromanaging to being too concerned with the details. While some may feel that way, the accusers are almost never the implementers or the doers, but are generally first in line to gripe and complain if something doesn't work out "just right." I feel strongly that what some consider micromanaging is rather a lack of trust that I have developed over the years, after observing what often occurs when you assign a task to someone less skilled, knowledgeable, or accomplished. Instead of saving time and effort, that "delegating" generally wastes more time and effort, and consistently creates more stress, as well. The end result is generally that you must then review every detail anyway if you want to be certain that it's right, for an organizer and coordinator is in fact held responsible. There is nothing constructive about blaming others, and if one organizes himself well, and plans ahead from the beginning, it takes less time, and is far less stressful, to simply do many things oneself.

Of course, there are certain things that should be delegated, but usually, it is not for the sake of efficiency, but rather "stroking the ego" of those that you need to be involved. Some activities require additional bodies, and if their egos are not stroked, one often does not get optimum cooperation.

The leader, planner or organizer should create a flowing, specific time line, when individual tasks must be done along the way. This time line must be part of the overall action plan, which includes not only this time line, but also identifies who will be doing what, and who may approve which details.

Anyone who does not sufficiently and painstakingly plan ahead, in as much detail as possible, is opening himself up to failure, unnecessary stress, and far less than the best possible outcome. There are no shortcuts or replacements to proper planning.

What Really Happened To The U.S. Economy?

For most of the twentieth century, the American economy was considered the "rock" that all economic indexes and guides were based on. The worldwide pricing of most of the world's commodities, such as gold, silver, oil, corn, etc., have been priced based on the U.S. dollar. Of course, in recent times, with the U.S. dollar weakening against many other currencies, commodities such as oil have, at least partially, responded to this weakening, but seeing their prices and their "future" prices go up by an additional amount, to at least somewhat offset this weakening.

Various economists have many different opinions as to what and who are responsible for this weakening in the American economy, and of the U.S. dollar. Those using historical perspective always point out that when in the middle of the twentieth century, the U.S. dollar transitioned from a Silver Certificate to a Federal Reserve Note, that it weakened the perceived value internationally, of the dollar. Others point to the trillions of dollars of accumulated United States government debt, that today has made the interest service on the national debt the second largest component of the U.S. budget, behind only the military budget.

In the 2000 election, with then President Clinton leaving a surplus budget in his final year, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore kept suggesting that Social Security payments be placed in a "lock box" instead of how they are presently handled, as just another "kitty" of government funds. This idea was never adopted, and we are constantly reminded that Social Security is running out of money. Isn't it ironic that while President Reagan in the 1980's was famous for, and is remembered for his tax cutting and his tax reduction and government spending reductions, that the Social Security "tax" raised dramatically, and is now about three times greater of a non-tax "tax" than it was when Reagan made his pledge. Of course, Social Security is a tax, and it is a rather regressive one at that, because even those below the level for paying taxes, still must contribute to Social Security, and that higher income individuals only pay on a specific amount of their earnings (which has been consistently raised to considerably over one hundred thousand dollars in earnings).

A study of the way our Federal Reserve has manipulated interest rates has caused many to question how responsible that institution might be towards the overall economic mess. Of course, the entire banking fiasco that began in about 2005, and still continues, has seen huge amounts of "recovery" funds thrown in to rescue institutions that were "too large to fail," yet selectively certain institutions such as Lehman Brothers was permitted to basically do exactly that - fail.

The more one reads about the economy, the more one finds identifiable villains. There is no easy answer, no matter how much either one political party or the other claims there is. No one can be sure that if the recovery funds were not spent the situation would have been even worse, perhaps devastating. That is pure speculation. However, the reality is, that until the politicians begin to study playing partisan politics, and make job creation, energy independence/ policy, and the economy the top priority, we will see a continuation of trying times. It is time for the American electorate to demand responsible government, now.

YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT OPINIONS

In a democratic society, each and every person is encouraged, as well as entitled to both have and voice his opinion. Unfortunately, those being advised by the one offering his opinion, often have to weight what, if any value, to place on the opinion.

People seem to express their opinions most often when it comes to certain topics and areas. Everyone seems to believe they are an expert when it comes to sports. When the time comes for the "big event," whether it be a major boxing bout, the Stanley Cup in hockey, the NBA playoffs, the World Series, a major tennis or golf tournament, etc., many individuals who are at best casual fans, offer their opinion about and discuss these events, as if their knowledge was extremely valuable.

Everyone has some opinion about world affairs, politics, politicians, and the economy. Rarely does one hear someone say that there statement is their opinion, but generally express it in such a matter that it appears to be some sort of revelation.

Everyone has an opinion about different types of cars, different restaurants, hotels and resorts, and places to travel to. Unfortunately, these opinions are generally more about personal taste (and sometimes lack of taste) than about anything factual.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone that, regardless of the topic, always expresses the "answer." Often, these individuals express opinions as if they are facts, and far too many of these people are incorrect far more than they are right.

This becomes problematic, however, when someone positions himself as an expert, and consults in area, although he is no where near being expert. Often this expert is simply expressing his opinion, and often his opinion has no more than, and sometimes less value than the person he is "advising."

One should always remember that an opinion is something that nearly everyone has, and not every opinion should carry authority, credence or weight when making a critical evaluation. On the other hand, when a true expert expresses an opinion on a topic pertaining to his expertise, one should pay particular attention.

It's Easy To Criticize But What Would You Suggest?

In many areas of life, we repeatedly hear individuals who are critical of others, often blaming the other for many different woes. While it is rather easy to criticize and complain, I always ask the individual doing the criticizing, what he would suggest as an alternative, and how he would suggest it be implemented? You would be amazed at how rarely the criticizing person responds with a plan of his own, but generally then continues criticizing even more.

Criticism without an alternative plan is nothing more than rhetoric and laziness. Instead of merely criticizing, let me know what part or parts you like, and which you do not, and why. Let me know what the objectives that you wish to achieve might be, rather than merely reciting the particulars of your objections.

I have never seen a perfect plan. The greatest line I have ever heard related to any plan was the character played by George Peppard in the "A Team," Hanibal, who lit up his cigar after an idea worked out as planned, leaned back and said, "I love it when a plan comes together."

This is often seen most obviously in the political arena. In times when things are not going nearly as well as most people would like, especially regarding domestic issues, but often also related to foreign affairs, the party and the politicians out of power or control generally "jump on the bandwagon" to criticize and blame the party in power for all the woes. While it is certainly legitimate to oppose someone's political position, and very often warranted, I believe it serves very little purpose to so without having a plan or a vision.

Unfortunately, it appears that many lack vision. Some are myopic, seeing things only narrowly, and not looking at the big picture. Some have a selfish vision, what I like to call "Lazy Vision," where they only see things as to how they are directly impacted. Yet others suffer from "Convenient Vision," adopting a point of view the same way an ice cream store has the "flavor of the day."

Next time there is something or someone you disagree with, don't just complain. If it means anything to you, and you really want to see it changed, take the time and the effort to fully understand the issues, all the complexities, ramifications and realities, and then "fight" for a better way to do it clearly, concisely and in detail. The politics of rhetoric, blame and apathy need to finally come to an end.

Successfully Planning An Event

Running an event can either be rather fulfilling, joyful, fun and exciting, or can end up being a nightmare. Most of what eventually ends up being the "running" of the event is predominantly impacted by how effectively the initial planning for the event was, and the action plan and time lines developed.

The first thing to consider in planning an event is what the main purpose of the event is. Is it social, business, educational, fund raising, or some combination of all of these? I have been hired to organize and run numerous events, and one of the biggest obstacles consistently is a lack of clarity as to the event's purpose. Planning for an event in that manner is like investing funds without knowing if the funds are needed short-term or long-term, what the acceptable degree of risk is, and the amount.

Once an organization clearly determines the purpose of an event, the next thing that must be done is set a goal for it. If it is for fund raising, the goal may be financial; if for gaining membership, it might be membership numbers; etc. Once the goal is set, the next question to ask is there a budget for the event? Is that budget realistic when it is compared to the determined goal?

Then one must determine what kind of event. Many events have limitations on them, and others carry inherent risk. For example, golf and tennis tournaments often have weather considerations, while galas have break- even points. What does this group consider acceptable risk?

What kind of events has this group done before? Have they been successful? Have they been as successful as they should have been? Is the risk/ reward factor involved with the event worth it?

Once all of these things have been determined, and one knows what type of event and its purpose, the next thing is to assure professional negotiations on all aspects that might impact the success of the event. Many non- professionals, and unfortunately even some event professionals, are either not properly trained negotiators, do not feel comfortable doing it, or are merely not good negotiators. A negotiator should know all the needs for the event up-front, so that as many concessions and favorable agreements can be built into any and all necessary contracts. It is essential not to overlook any aspect, because when it comes to negotiating, all areas are important.

Next, an action plan must be determined and decided upon, with a detailed time line, indicating when each component must be planned, done, and followed up on, and by whom. Professional event planners need to plan as many details as possible, and be prepared for any and all ramifications and necessary adjustments. The difference between an unsuccessful event and a successful one is the planning. However, the difference between a successful event, and a wildly successful "smash" of an event, is the completeness, thoroughness, and quality of the planning.

What's In It For Me?

I am sure we have all met many people whose philosophy of life and what they do or do not do, can best be summed up by the words, "What's in it for me?" While I fully understand and appreciate that people have to "watch their backs" and make sure they are not taken advantage of, I strongly believe there are many situations where that attitude is, at best limiting, and at worst, selfish, narcissistic, and wrong. Every individual must have their own individual moral and ethical code, and it must include doing what's right.

I have always felt that, at least in terms of guiding my own personal actions, the most essential thing is to always remain true to my beliefs. My mother used to always tell me that you can always regain and rebuild nearly everything, except your self-respect and reputation. Mythology refers to individuals who are "Janus-faced," and others call it two-faced, but there is very little as irritating as dealing with an individual who says one thing to your face and another behind your back. How can one ever trust an individual who exhibits that type of behavior?

Why does there always have to be something in it for someone? At least, not something that directly benefits the individual in a material way. Doesn't peace of mind, doing the right thing, helping others, caring, etc. count for anything?

The Hebrew word, "tikun olam" literally means healing the world. If we all simply guided our lives and our actions by the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you," wouldn't we live in a far better society?

This may seem like an odd philosophy from someone who has spent my entire adult life in: sales; marketing; consulting; negotiations; conference, convention and event organization, development and management; real estate sales and management; etc., but I feel that the keynote to my career in each industry and every endeavor is my code of ethics. I strongly feel that I have consistently gotten far better results in all my negotiations and presentations, because I have always remained open and honest with those that I deal.

You only get out of life what you put in. Therefore, doesn't it make sense to adopt a helpful attitude than a what's in it for me philosophy?

Is Inflation A Good Or A Bad Thing?

Economics, economic theories, and political realities often cross paths, and make many people wonder what's going on. We have offered heard about the dangers of inflation, the dangers of recession, and other similar terminology, yet most of us will hear the media, and especially the business media, one day warn of the risk of inflation, and another day cite the lower than anticipated inflation rate as something to be concerned about. There are even different sets of indexes, one that includes core items (whatever that really means) and another that measures the inflation rate including energy costs.

The only thing that most American consumers concern themselves about from day to day, is how these costs impact them. Is their cost of living going up, staying the same, or going down. I have not met anyone recently that has told me that he feels that things are costing him less. At the supermarket, manufacturers continuing their clever "game" of effectively raising prices by keeping prices the same but reducing the package size. Shouldn't pricing be considered for these cost of living indexes the way the unit pricing is required by a lot of states, that is, by showing the cost per ounce, or per serving? Most of us have observed increased costs in milk, most meats, fowl, fish, cans of soda, bottles of soda, etc. Yet, we are being told that there is no or little inflation.

Gas prices are constantly fluctuating, yet the pattern is that prices go up. About the only thing that has not kept pace with these increases is average wages. Many workers are being paid for fewer hours, while others have been laid off. The unemployment rate statistically is about 9.5%, but realistically is more than 15%. Many Americans are either under-employed or unemployed, and this has been going on for so long, that, for many, unemployment benefits are expiring. If these people's benefits run out, the statistics will show a lower unemployment rate, because the official statistics does not count people not collecting benefits. It also does not count individuals who owned small businesses, that had to go out of business, because owners of these types of businesses are generally not eligible for unemployment,

The bottom line is that statistics are misleading. There is an old saying that the difference between a recession and a depression is, that it's a recession when it happens to someone else, and a depression when it happens to you. It is time for the American public to demand that our government officials stop partisan politics, and realistically address the economy and the joblessness issues, making those the overwhelming top priorities.

Can I Sell My House?

As a New York State licensed real estate salesperson, a Real Estate Cyberspace Specialist, and an Ecobroker, I am asked all the time, "Can I sell my house?" Generally, I answer that any house can be sold, if it is priced correctly, and one will generally receive his best offer in the first few weeks after a house is listed on the market.

In all economies, houses sell. Obviously, there is quite a bit of price fluctuation, and there are areas where the real estate market is stronger, and others where the housing market is weaker. The key, however, to marketing and eventually selling one's home, is properly pricing it from the very beginning. Too many homeowners list their homes with whichever real estate agent suggests listing the home at the highest price, yet that is probably the worst strategy in most cases. If a homeowner truly wants to sell his home, the price asked for the home should be based on a tightly and properly prepared, in-depth, professionally formulated Comparative Market Analysis, known commonly as a C.M.A.

A Comparative Market Analysis evaluates homes in very comparable areas, nearby, in the same condition, with similar attributes. It should look at homes on the market presently, houses that have sold recently (in a weaker market, only prices of houses sold in the last approximately six months should be considered), and houses that the listing expired, which means did not sell during the listing period. Homeowners should understand that today most buyers begin their search on the internet, and the majority of them do a search by area and price range. Therefore, pricing a house at $799,999 will often appear in many more searches than, for example, pricing it at $800,000.

When pricing one's home, and doing accurate comparables, the clever agent will recommend pricing at or below the median price in the group of homes on the market in similar condition, etc. The key to selling one's home is most often statistical, which means the more "looks" at the house, the better the chance of it selling. In general, if a house is getting few looks, the listing price is too high for current market conditions. If the house is getting looks but no quality offers, either there is some "sticking point" that is causing resistance, or the house "does not show well."

About three months ago, I had a quality, pre-approved client that I was helping as a buyers' agent. This couple had specific needs, and had more than twenty percent to put down, excellent credit rating, and was motivated. The house they were interested was a lovely house, but had certain limitations. The sellers listing price was $879,000 although nothing on the block ever sold for more than $828,000, and the one house that sold for that price, was a new "build," and was sold in a stronger housing market. Realistically, this house should have been sold for somewhere in the low $800,000 range. After several offers, my client offered his final offer of $820,000, and the buyer would not come anywhere close to that price. In my opinion, it is doubtful, in the present market, that there will be any other offers nearly as high. The bottom line is that house is still not only on the market, but is still listed at $879,000. Whether it is an unrealistic homeowner or a weak or poorly informed real estate agent, the seller certainly did himself no favor.

Houses are selling in this market. Yes, it is more difficult to qualify and get a mortgage, and banks are much more conservatively appraising houses values in terms of how much mortgage to offer. Yet, if one has a decent financial record, has twenty percent to put down, and is realistic, houses are selling, and are a good deal. With mortgage rates near historic lows, the combination of lower house prices and lower interest rates can dramatically reduce a new homeowners monthly housing costs.

However, until consumers feel more confident, realtors understand that they don't make money unless homes sell, and both buyers and sellers become truly motivated and realistic, the housing market will not be as robust as a few years ago. However, for those willing to accept "today's rules," they can do extremely well.

Why Some Family Businesses Continue While Others Can't Survive Founders Death

There are many examples of family businesses that flourish from generation to generation, while some hugely successful businesses are unable to survive the death of the founder. If both were successful during a founders lifetime, why do some thrive, while others demise.

Certain businesses are tremendously related and attached to the founder, his image, story and reputation. Businesses where that is the case must bring the next generation in "early" in the business cycle, so that there is a seamless transition. Two of the best examples of successfully transitioning a business from onw generation to the next, although the founder had a strong image, is P.C. Richards, the New York metro area electronics chain, and Syms Clothing. In P.C. Richard's case. the emphasis of the advertising has long been on the family, and how the founder passed along his "ethic" from generation to generation. They have always emphasized their reliability and reputation. Sy Syms, founder of SYMS, brought his son and daughter into the business, while he was still running it, and gradually integrated them into their advertising alongside him. Today, Sy Syms is still alive and involved with ads, while his daughter, Marcy is the President of the company and his son is the Vice President. Not only has SYMS been able to maintain itself, last year they purchased the struggling but well-known Filenes Basement chain. Tom Carvel and his gravely voice became almost synonymous with the Carvel Ice Cream brand, and although Tom has long not been involved, and has now passed away, there are often still references to both him, and his promotions.

On the other hand, when Dr. Robert Atkins, the famous low carbohydrate diet advocate and integrative and complementary medicine expert, tragically passed away, and his huge medical practice had to be closed after his demise. His nutritional food company has finally gotten "back on its feet," but for quite a while were unable to thrive because there was no strong identity to take his place and advocate passionately on its behalf.

Loew's Corporation, the giant New York based conglomerate, and New York Stock exchange corporation, was founded by two brothers, Lawrence and Robert Tisch. These men led Loew's with their business accumen, and today their children maintain most of the top positions in the company, and the company has continued successfully. Of course, after Harry and Louise Hemsley had both health and legal difficulties, the value of their once-great empire diminished dramatically.

Family businesses must develop transition plans, and gradually integrate the next generation into the business, as well as continuously give the next generation more and more responsibility, and visibility. The companies that thrive continuously do this, while those that don't often suffer. A great example of a once-great empire that did not adequately plan for its founder's death was the Los Angeles Dodgers sports franchise. When Walter O'Malley died, there was inadequate estate planning in place, and the family was forced to sell the Dodgers to be able to pay substantial estate taxes.

As the adage goes, "Plan ahead. It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."

The More Someone Protests, The More There May Be To It

The adage "Thou protestest too much," often referred to someone making repeated denials that often appeared disproportionate to what was being asked. While sometimes, someone is "thin skinned," and thus reacts to any type of criticism in a demonstrative manner, it is quite often that when someone has done something, either wrong, in error, or not as well as he should have, that he protests loudly and vehemently.

As disconcerting as that obviously is in personal matters, it often has far more serious and far- reaching impacts and ramifications, when it comes to organizations. While most individuals who ascend to leadership positions in organizations are generally well meaning and well intentioned, I have, unfortunately, seen numerous examples of these individuals who are either "in over their head" because they are ill-prepared for the necessities of the position, and very often unwilling to admit their shortcomings. These individuals very often get "defensive" when questioned, and become "territorial" in their dealings. Their continued "state of denial" often leads to a "crippling" effect on an organization, because many organizations are so heavily dependent on their volunteer leadership.

This situation more often than not becomes even more "toxic" because the untrained, ill-prepared individual is often swayed by someone who comforts him, and "shuts down" against someone who is more confrontational and questioning. Since relations between volunteer leaders and paid staff are often quite fluid, with certain leaders becoming "friendly" with staff, while others are more demanding that paid staff do what they are supposed to be doing. One of the greatest challenges, and weakest links in this whole procedure, is so few of these individuals even know what to realistically search for.

Loudly protesting something doesn't make the protester's position or point of view any more valid. My experience has been that those that are always complaining and protesting that they are being treated badly, or without sufficient respect, often do not warrant the respect that they seek. One of the most common complaints by these types of individuals is often that someone does not give them enough credit for knowing what to do, or that they are "grown up," or that they don't need advice, or complain that they are being "micromanaged."

Leadership consultants eventually discover that it really is not micromanagement if the individual doesn't have sufficient grasp on what needs to be done.

Real Savings Comes From Small Savings

Having created hundreds of budgets for corporations and organizations, and consulted regarding finances to even more, I have observed that one of the most prevalent mindsets is that saving a little bit of money is insignificant, because of the overall size of the financial picture. However, merely because that is a prevalent attitude does not make it either correct or accurate, and in the cases of either reducing or closing deficits, or balancing budgets, is absolutely inaccurate.

It is quite rare, unless an organization decides upon "Draculean" cuts in a specific area, or discontinued certain limited time or one time expenditures, that most of the cost savings can be found by making large "cuts." In my experience, I have found that a large number of small reductions in numerous areas, while "counting nickels and dimes" is indeed the most effective way of developing a dramatically reduced amount of total expenditures.

In my more than three decades of involvement in this activity, I have almost routinely been able to save enormous sums merely by evaluating every expense, and seeing if there is a better way, a more effective way, and a less expensive way of achieving a goal. Many fiscal officers of organizations, because they are predominantly untrained or inadequately trained in the fiscal necessities of organizational management, appear to fail to grasp both the simplicity and methodology required.

I have been often asked if this is so simple, and it works, why don't more fiscal leaders utilize this technique? There is never a simple reason to explain why individuals do or do not do something in a specific way. I, however, tend to believe that the "small multiple cut" method requires more evaluation, more effort, and a greater amount of understanding than looking to just make big cuts. Many years ago, one of my bosses, who was the Executive Vice President of a financial services company, enjoyed using the adage, "You know how you eat the elephant? One bite at a time!"

I have written and spoken for many years about the dire need for organizations to prioritize and emphasize leadership training, development and qualification. As essential as overall leadership development is, it is far more dangerous when fiscal officers are ill-prepared than when others are. Organizations without control of their finances, and without financial and fiscal stability, rarely flourish.

Management And Leadership Are Not A Style

For over three decades, I have been given numerous explanations by multiple individuals in positions of organizational leadership, as to why they did or did not do a specific thing. One of the most intriguing aspects of consulting is that it provides one with the opportunity to actually sit back and impartially view "leaders" in situations where one is not directly involved. It provides the consultant with the ability, therefore, to objectively and impartially evaluate performance, action or inaction, and results.

While no two "leaders" handle situations in precisely the same manner, there are certain basics and/or fundamentals that are musts to be an effective leader. The vast majority of the greatest blunders I have ever observed in these three decades are "leaders" who continuously fail to take decisive action, yet will consistently explain away their reasons for their inaction. However, to me, the least acceptable explanation that I can be given explaining either acting or not acting is when the "leader" uses expressions, like, "It's not my style," or "It's not my leadership style," or "I have a different style of leading." Management and leadership is not about one's style, but about vision, action planning, decision making and decisiveness, and ethical and moral behavior. Invariably, when I have heard someone in that position explain something as a matter of style, I know that they are not at all effective.

Speaking about style would indicate a belief that popularity is one of the most effective traits of leadership. While popularity may be a politically advantageous asset, it is often the antithesis of leadership, because one should not govern to be popular, but to be effective.

Far too many people who ascend to officer positions in an organization end up clearly demonstrating the "Peter Principle," which, of course, is that each and every person ascends to their own level of incompetency. Unfortunately, since so few organizations have anything resembling effective leadership training, very few volunteers who ascend to positions of responsibility are adequately prepared for the vigors, or requirements of these positions. Until organizations demonstrate a willingness to commit to professional training for the leaders and potential, future leaders, the situation will continue, and ill-prepared individuals will continue to speak in terms of style.

What To Do When You Hear, "I Want To Think About It"

Many of us have been in a scenario similar to this one. You have just given what you feel is a great presentation, and given numerous compelling reasons why someone should avail themselves of a particular service or product, and the person you are speaking to says to you, "I want to think about it."

One of the biggest errors that most presenters do at that point is "let the person off the hook," by responding that you'd like them to think about it, and you'll get back to them, or they should get back to you. In most sales- type situations, your greatest chance to "close the sale or deal" is when you are giving the presentation, because at that moment, you possess more control over the situation than at nearly any other point. How you react to their "I want to think about it" often makes all the difference.

A time-proven and effective technique is to calmly respond, "I can perfectly understand that, but what exactly is it that concerns you that you need to consider?" The next step, however, is the most crucial. Instead of anxiously continuously and trying to immediately respond, force yourself to "zip the lip" (Z.T.L.) The Z.T.L. method states that the next person to speak is in the weaker situation, and the one that keeps his lips zipped, generally ends up victorious.

Often, after a delay, the other person will respond something indistinct like, "I'm just not sure." If that, in fact, is the response, then your response should be a calm, "What may I clarify for you? What questions do you need answered?" Of course, it is then imperative to resume your Z.T.L. strategy.

Human nature, being what it is, makes this a far more difficult thing to do than it sounds like. We are all tempted to over-explain, and interrupt. Many of us fear questions, because we often lack confidence in our ability to explain an issue in detail.

Regardless of what the objection might be, one should always follow some variation of the following five steps:

(1) Repeat the objection to be sure you understand it. Say something like, "In other words, you're concerned about . . . "

(2) Then it is essential to empathize. Empathy is putting yourself in the other person's "shoes," as compared to sympathy which is feeling sorry. Never sympathize at this stage, but empathy is essential. The easiest way to do that is by stating, "I can perfectly understand the way you feel. I felt like that and most people I know felt the same way, until they realized a few things."

(3) Many people tend to try to skip this next step. You now must have listened effectively to the other person's concerns, so that you can now able to give the most compelling reasons why it should be the other person's priority.

(4) Once you've given your reasons, you must recreate the need, by stating, "In light of the reasons we've just discussed (and list them),"

(5) Finally, you must re-close the deal, by saying, "Doesn't it make sense to . . .?"

If all else fails, and you have done all the above steps, there is one additional thing to attempt. Calmly ask, "May I make a suggestion?" Again, Z.T.L., and Make a compelling, yet brief restatement of your case.

These are easy techniques to follow, but like all other things, requires practice and confidence, and then, finally, doing it.

Leaders Always Find It Harder When They Can't Trust Their Co-Leaders

One of the greatest disappointments, and initially one of my biggest surprises, that I have encountered in my more than three decades training leaders, is that quite often, the harder working, most visioning, best trained and most capable leader is confronted by far more obstacles than those that are merely "leader by ascension." When I refer to "leaders by ascension," I refer to the great majority of organizational leaders that are ineffective, untrained, procrastinate, and lack the vision of a true leader.

I have surmised that the reason for this situation is that the most dedicated leaders often become disappointed in, and begin to lack confidence in, their co-leaders. Many ineffective leaders make a commitment to do something, but then follow the path of least resistance, often blaming others, over-delegating to unqualified or untrained individuals, refuse to pay attention to necessary details, or unwilling to "rock the boat."

For most otherwise effective leaders, this can create a considerable amount of stress, often causing the individual to waste valuable time dealing with personality conflicts, or issues that develop because something that another committed to was not in a timely and/ or a correct basis, thus often exacerbating what should have been a somewhat minor issue into something major.

My examination into leadership teams at most organization indicates that by the end of the time that the team works together, there is usually very little friendship or understanding, far less respect of each other than when the term began, much contentiousness, often anger, blaming, and even sometimes resorting to juvenile "name calling." I have come to believe that it is due, in part to frustration, and largely to the fact that most people in leadership positions are either unqualified, or untrained to be in that situation.

When there are situations where there are volunteer leaders and paid staff, it us usually even worse. Some leaders have a higher opinion of the staff than others, some try to befriend instead of being their "boss," and some merely do not understand how to effectively deal with and train staff, in order to achieve optimum performance.

It should be no surprise that there is so much "burnout" amongst volunteer leaders, because the positions generally require a larger than anticipated amount of time, effort, and commitment. These people should try to relax, and simply be proud of the fact that they've done their best, and you can't have expectations of other people based on what you do.

Organizations Need To Create And Use Best Practices

While most of us train our children in certain behaviors and teach them one method to brush their teeth, etc., and we even train our dogs in terms of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and attempt to be consistent in these situations, the vast majority of organizations insist on constantly "reinventing the wheel."

For the past three decades, I have been teaching and training organizations and their leaders on how to create a series of best practices, so that those aspects of running the organization that are repetitive from year to year, can be readily and easily duplicated, so as to run seamlessly. However, the vast majority of organizations often find a need to change things up, often without any true rhyme or reason. While I have often spoken about, and written about, the importance of organizations to evolve, there is a tremendous difference between evolution and widespread revolution. Although I have observed a few organizations where revolution was probably called for, in most cases it is simply a matter of tweaking slightly the way things are done, in order to adapt to changing times, changing economics, changing member needs, etc.

Organizations that have any type of annual meetings, events, conferences or conventions, should develop in-depth, step-by-step manuals, so that each year, the organizers or chair people of the event, do not need to recreate everything. While there are always a few things that need changing, having the overall guide is very helpful. However, the concept of best practices includes each year's chairperson to make comments and evaluations as to what worked, what did not, and any suggestions. Too many organizations create a manual, but rarely update it, so that it becames outdated, and thus lack any useful purpose.

Organizations with paid staff should create annual calendars so that the staff knows what needs to be done, and when. This should have deadlines for each step, and the review processes needed. I have heard from far too many that this was unnecessary because they have paid staff that take care of that, but the reality is that there is generally at least some turnover in personnel. Paid staff should also be thoroughly trained and fully understanding their duties, and what is expected of them. Without this, there is often a misunderstanding as to what the expectations are, and generally one side feels that too much is expected, while the other believes that not enough is being done.

Similarly, volunteer leaders must be fully aware of their duties and expectations. Existing leaders should annually (if not more often) tweak the "Job Description" sheet, so that a new leader can be better prepared. Obviously, the few organizations that effectively have real leadership training fare better in terms of this than the majority that do not.

Concerns Need To Be Addressed On A Timely Basis

Organizations and their ineffective leaders are often their own worst enemies. In more than three decades of consulting, I have observed repeated occurrences when effective leaders would have taken decisive action to address a concern before it became a larger issue, but that untrained, unskilled and ineffective leaders refrained from responding, using excuses like, "I don't want to blow this out of proportion," or "It's just a misunderstanding." As bad as those excuses are in terms of competent leadership and management, it is even worse when someone in a leadership position states that they will find out what's going on, often using cliched expressions like, "I'll get to the bottom of it," and then neglect the issue entirely.

Effective leadership is a hands-on exercise. If someone does not want "to get their hands dirty," they probably should avoid leadership roles. Procrastinating on taking action when there is a first indication of a potential issue, generally results in the issue becoming more and more difficult to resolve.

One of the first warning signals of potential issues is when their is consistent tardiness, in terms of getting promised items completed. If deadlines are constantly missed, errors are constantly made, etc., that usually indicates that something is going wrong. While there will always be some errors made, when that becomes the norm, there should be an indication that their is a potential wider issue.

If I received even a small amount of money for every excuse I have heard both volunteer leaders as well as paid staff use in the past three decades, I would never have to work again. Those that often do not take heed of issues, or say that they "don't want to rock the boat," or that they will "wait and see, and let it work out" often come back later, with a bit of revisionist history, stating that they were against something or wary of it for a long time. Individuals who do not act on concerns are not part of the solution, but rather perpetuate an issue into turning into a problem.

Having assisted numerous organizations in interviewing, qualifying, and recommending paid staff, as well as having served as both a Director of Operations as well as a Development Director for a few not-for-profit organizations, I can certainly state with certainty that most staff members are ill-prepared for their positions, and that most volunteer leaders do not even fully understand what their needs are. Because of this, when staff under-performs, it takes many of these volunteer leaders far too long to properly handle the situation.

There are many sports stories about coaches that considered players late if they did not get to team meetings at least fifteen minutes before it was scheduled for. Without timeliness, issues develop, and are far more difficult to resolve because by the time they are acted on, it is quite late.

Honesty And Integrity Have Become Rarities

In all aspects of life, we seem to be witnessing a certain loss of the basic human qualities of honesty and integrity. We have come to accept as a "fact of life" that our politicians often lie, that our government lies, and that many people lie much more often than they tell the truth. It is indeed a sad commentary that many of us find it so "refreshing" to come across a "straight shooter," who "tells it like it is."

I sometimes believe that the often vilified President James Earl Carter, because of the public's reaction to him during his Presidency, may in some ways be one of the reasons that there are so few politicians who tell you what they really think. Whether someone liked Carter or not, agreed with him or not, liked his policies or not, or thought he did a good job or not, few would doubt either his honesty or sincerity. In fact, many unbiased observers believe that one of the main reasons that arch enemies, Israel's Manachem Begin, and Egypt's Anwar Sadat, came to a "peace agreement," was because they both believed that Carter was an "honest broker." Isn't it strange that a man so heavily criticized during his Presidency, and so attacked within this country, became the most sought after mediator for so many foreign disputes? Perhaps, the lesson to be learned is that it is okay to be honest when you want to accomplish something, but it is not a politically wise decision?

I go to a local mechanic for nearly all the work on all our family cars. While most of us complain about the questionable honesty of so many mechanics, this shop has repeatedly demonstrated that they are honest and honorable. While in the short run, on a particular sale, they may make less money than the less honest mechanics, in the long run, hopefully, word of mouth will bring them many referrals because of so many satisfied customers.

Years ago, when I developed a sales training program for a financial services company, I taught representatives that, in the long run, whatever commission they might make from one sale will never compensate for the long-term damage done to their reputation by mistreating or misinforming even a single client. I kept reminding them that referrals and repeat business was the difference between success and failure. And, that way you can always get a good night's sleep!

When I look back on my consulting business, and why I have so many satisfied and repeat clients, and receive so many positive referrals, is that my personal attitude is that I would always rather lose business than sleep. I yearn for a time when that is the rule, not the exception

Avoiding Difficult Decisions Doesn't Make Them Go Away

One of the fatal flaw of ineffective leaders is that they often adopt the attitude of, "It will all work out," and "I don't want to get involved." However, organizational models, real history and common sense indicate that is often not the case. While there are always petty matters that do not require a leader's attention or efforts, there are more pressing matters that a real leader needs to address directly, often without delay or procrastination.

While it is almost never a good idea to act hastily, or over-react without thinking the matter through, it is almost always far worse to do nothing or procrastinate. Leaders who procrastinate are not leaders at all. In my three decades of consulting to businesses and organizations on numerous issues including leadership and management, I have never witnessed when procrastinating proved to be the best course in the long run. Unfortunate, far too many so-called leaders procrastinate because they are either unwilling, unable or too "afraid" to take decisive action, or fear a loss of popularity. True leadership requires ignoring one's own popularity, and replacing it rather with doing the right thing.

Situations, dangers, obstacles and perils do not simply disappear because you do nothing. In fact, what generally happens when a leader procrastinates, is that the situation is exacerbated. It becomes far more complex and difficult to overcome because of the "law of unintended circumstances," meaning that what might have been a rather simple challenge to overcome originally, if acted upon immediately, ends up developing into a far worse situation.

One of the biggest errors made is not paying sufficient attention to small to medium sized expenses, thinking that they were "insignificant" costs in the large picture. As someone who has prepared budgets for decades, financial success or failure often occurs because of the bundling of these small expenses. If a real leader examined it, he would say that fiscal responsibility is called for, regardless of the expense, and all expenses need to be examined in terms of cost/ benefit. Most ineffective leaders avoid the issue, and then unintended circumstances occur because of the procrastination.

Leaders must never avoid making decisions, regardless of the degree of difficulty. They should examine issues thoroughly, understand them fully, and then proceed in a timely manner to take action. Of course, an ineffective leader can always claim, "It's not my job."

It's Not Paranoia If There's A Reason To Be Concerned

Have you ever had a conversation with someone in which you expressed certain concerns that you considered valid, and the other person dismissed your concerns immediately by responding, "Oh, you're just being paranoid"? As disconcerting as that may be when it concerns personal issues, in organizational matters, leaders must always vigilantly protect their organizations.

In over three decades of consulting to organizations, I remember very few instances where a leader's over-vigilance caused any long-term problems, but unfortunately, have observed far too many times that individuals in leadership positions under-estimate the seriousness of a situation.

Because the fiscal officers of most small to medium- sized organization do not generally undergo detailed fiscal and financial training, they often neglect details that might prove essential to any organization. For example, I find it amazing at how many organizations permit employees to universally sign checks of any denomination. Similarly, it astounds me that organizations do not require dual- signature checks for denominations exceeding a certain amount.

Another error I have observed often is when organizations keep too much money in one particular account, or keep all the checkbooks in the office, overseen exclusively by paid staff Far too organizations do surprise periodic reviews of the books as a "fail-safe" against potential fraud, error, or in the worse cased scenario, embezzlement.

Incompetent volunteer leaders incorrectly employ rhetoric like, "I don't want to micro-manage," or "It's not my management style," etc. However, as politically correct and cliche chic that saying that appears, it really amounts to a serious management flaw, with potentially damaging effects.

It is not paranoia if someone is really after you, nor is it being paranoid when there are serious reasons to be concerned. For decades, I have preached that until professional leadership training is the norm, and taken seriously, many organizations will face unnecessary challenges and take risks that are not warranted. Volunteers leaders must realize that it is their fiduciary responsibility to reduce risk to their organizations!

Leadership Is An Attained Skill

Although there might be a rare exception that I have never had the pleasure to meet in my more than three decades of training individuals in leadership-related skills, I believe that there is no such thing as a "born leader." Although some individuals have personalities, ethics, morals and character traits that might potentially make them better leaders, no individual is born with all the necessities of leadership.

Leaders must be able to balance self-confidence with humility. If an individual lacks self-confidence, he most likely will find difficulty in "pulling the trigger" on making necessary decisions. On the other hand, a leader must have reasonably good "people skills" so as not to "turn people off," and must be able to subordinate his ego to the needs of the organization.

Many individuals in leadership positions seem to act as if they deserve certain "perks" because of the amount of time, effort and commitment they devote to the organization. My decades of consulting on leadership have clearly demonstrated that if someone is expecting to be thanked for his efforts that he will generally be soundly disappointed. Organizational members neither observe the hard work, nor do most of the care how much effort it is, and while they appreciate the effort, they expect their leaders to give one hundred percent effort.

Effective leaders must learn how to evaluate themselves objectively, and honestly know their own strengths and weaknesses. They must also know how to evaluate their co-officers, and be able to distinguish those that "walk the walk" from those that merely "talk the talk." They must also be able to evaluate members, and recognize those that might be potential future leaders.

Leaders must understand the importance of, and how to create and effectively use an action plan. They must also understand the necessities of having a "vision," and how that vision should be interrelated with the organization's mission. They must understand what a mission statement is, and how it should be used.

They must also understand the concept of evolving an organization. This means building upon the strengths of the organization, maintaining its mission, while evolving and tweaking it, as necessary, for evolving times and changes.

Leaders must understand the importance of maintaining a positive attitude, and how issues should be viewed as obstacles or challenges, rather than as problems. They should be detail-oriented, but learn how to train trusted others do perform certain tasks.

Volunteer leaders must learn how to utilize paid staff, and how to evaluate them. They must neither expect too much or too little from them, but must demand that they do what is expected of them.

There are so many essentials of leadership. That is why effective leadership training is ongoing, and goes into considerable detail on multiple related and relevant topics. Leadership requires strength- a type of inner strength that may be one of the few characteristics that might not easily be taught. That characteristic of inner strength is a sign I always look for when identifying potential future leaders.

Leaders Must Be Willing To Take A Stand

In three decades of doing leadership training, I generally begin by asking individuals if they consider themselves potential leaders, and why. I generally ask them to help me identify, with them, what the necessities of a leader are, what qualities are needed, and what kind of expertise might be required.

At that preliminary stage, I generally hear all the cliches, rhetoric and platitudes that one would expect, as if the participants are merely trying to tell me what they think I want to hear. However, occasionally, someone will say that a leader is someone who takes on responsibilities, and does what is necessary to get something important accomplished, whether it is popular or not. Almost invariably, I realize that if that individual is being sincere and honest, and really means what he says, that he is someone with well above average leadership potential.

One of the most disappointing things to a leadership observer and consultant, is that so many individuals ascend to leadership rolls who are not leaders. Often, they ascended because of popularity, or a pleasing personality. Other times, it was because the individual was willing to say whatever anyone wanted to hear. Unfortunately, far too often, someone ascends to leadership because of a lack of competition. Many of these people take the "don't rock the boat" path to leadership, and "straddle the fence" on every issue. These individuals often sit back and see what happens, and then "come to the party late," becoming concerned after the fact, blaming others for the difficulties, and complaining. Anyone who has spent over three decades working in leadership training realizes that those individuals are anything but leaders.

A leader must be willing to take a stand. Leaders must have a vision that they believe in, that they feel is best for their organization. These people create a well thought out plan, and dedicate themselves to "getting it done," whether it is popular or not.

Leadership professionals understand that some of the most popular leaders often are the worst, and history almost always shows that. Many who are unpopular during their term in office get their organization moving on a course of action that is essential to the organization's well-being.

Many years ago, I was on the Board of Trustees of a synagogue. Like many other institutions, this one was "rooted" in their glorious history, but had neglected its operations, finances, and changing social and economic times. There were sixty six members on that Board, and in the first year, there were many 65-1 and 64-2 votes that I voted in the minority. After a few years, I still often sided with the minority, but by a narrower margin, maybe- 42-24. Several years later, the majority even voted with me, supporting my idea on something that they defeated handily several years before. I fought them for responsible fiscal policy and numerous conceptual operational changes, and while opposed initially, eventually changed some minds. When we finally moved out the neighborhood many years later, I remember thinking that it was time for me to leave, if there are so many that now agreed with me. Obviously, I was not the most popular member of that Board. But, would I have traded being popular with standing up for what I believed, and proved to be right I do not hesitate for a second in stating that if one takes on a leadership role, he owes it to his organization to "fight" for what he believes.

E-mail Response Time

When you send someone an e-mail, what do you consider a reasonable period of time to wait for a response? What do you consider a realistic time to wait for the e-mail to be acknowledged?

In today's digital and electronic world, many people have become overly dependent on communicating via e-mail, even in some cases, to the near exclusion of other forms of communication. This e-mail dependency is to some degree understood, because it is easier to state an opinion when there is no one else there to respond immediately. However, if the matter is significant, and if it is not, why bother with the e-mail in the first place, the longer someone takes to respond, the less amenable the original party is to "friendly" discourse.

When I have trained leaders in my Leadership Training programs, executives during Management Training, and sales representatives during Marketing and Sales Training programs, I emphasize the need to respond immediate. In fact, some of the most successful organizations mandate that their "people" carry Blackberry devices, or other Personal Data devices (PDAs), in order to almost immediately receive e-mail communication, and therefore to respond immediately.

In real estate, statistics show that realtors who do not carry personal data devices take an average of 24 to 48 hours to respond to a request, while those using the PDAs properly, should respond within about twenty minutes. Think about it- if you were "shopping" for a real estate agent, who would you feel more comfortable working with, and more responsive to your needs, the agent who almost immediately responded or the one than took a couple of days?

As someone who has been working in consulting in multiple industries for the past three decades, the period since these devices have been available have significantly impacted how I deal with my own clients. When I receive an e-mail (and I have e-mail from ten different e-mails forwarded to my Blackberry), I respond immediately. If I have the information at my fingertips at that moment, I fully answer the question, inquiry or request immediately. If I need to get additional information, or if the necessary information is in a different location that where I am, at the time, I still respond, letting the requester know that I will get them a detailed answer, and give them a time to expect that information. If I cannot get it to them by that time, I let them know right away, either by e-mail, or by picking up the telephone.

Since some e-mail is overlooked, some is simply not responded to, some is forgotten about, and some ends up in the "junk" or "spam" folder, it is both polite and proper business technique to respond to all incoming e-mail on a priority basis. Remember that everyone always thinks that what they are working on is the top priority!

Too Many Excuses, Not Enough Action

It seems that so many people these days always want to get patted on the back for everything they do, byt like to absolve themselves from any responsibility for anything that might not go perfectly. One often hears a variety of excuses, as well as attempts to place the "blame" elsewhere. Since mistakes are always going to occur, my main complaint is not that a mistake occurs (for i certainly make plenty of those), but by individual's who are unwilling to admit errors.

There is always some excuse. How many times has someone told you that the project was late because either the individual or a family member became suddenly ill. Of course, illnesses occur, and nobody invites them and tells them when they are admitted. On the other hand, most of the time, the illness might not have been a determining factor had the project begun earlier. Too many people tend to procrastinate, or make promises, or indicate that something will be done by a certain date, and then when it is not accomplished in a timely manner, attempt to explain away the failure to perform by using excuses or blaming others.

I wish that people and companies would simply not promise to do something if they have no realistic intention or ability to get it done by that deadline. If it happens once, it is understandable. However, in my decades of management and consulting, I have observed that there is generally a pattern of non-performance. There are always some individuals, companies, and organizations that consistently accomplish things they agree to do, while others rarely get it done as promised.

Is this failure to perform merely over-enthusiasm, misjudgment of abilities, mis-analysis of what needed to be done, or a pattern of less than honest behavior? Again, I have observed that most often when there is a pattern of non-performance that there is more than a slight degree of dishonesty.

I simply wish that individuals, companies and organizations would keep their promises. If they believe they cannot get something done by a specific asked-for time, simply state that upfront, and give a realistic, achievable time when they can achieve it, while "shooting for" an earlier completion time.