How Should Leaders Close?: May I Make A Suggestion?

Although, many in positions of leadership, don't seem to want to acknowledge it, much of what an effective leader does, involves selling, and sales! Whether it involves dealings with other leaders, constituents, stakeholders (or potential ones), how effectively one motivates, and inspires, others, in terms of his, call - to - action, often, makes a significant difference, between quality leadership, and the same - old, same - old. With that in mind, this article will attempt to briefly examine, review, consider, and discuss, the 5 steps, involved in addressing any concern, and/ or answering most questions, and focus upon, the key, 6th, fall - back, step, which involves asking, May I make a suggestion?, and then, waiting for acknowledgment, and proceeding effectively.

1. Repeat/ identify: Either because of a lack of sufficient, self - confidence, or, less than optimal, judgment, imagination, and/ or expertise, we often witness, impatience, dominating over, patience, and waiting, for the concerned party, to fully explain, what he wants answered, to his satisfaction. Therefore, begin by repeating, and stating, what you believe is the issue, and waiting for acknowledgment, what you believe is the concern, actually is. Too often, we respond, too soon, and provide answers, to questions, never asked, and often, not considered, and, by doing so, open upon, the challenging, Pandora's Box. Only when you know, for sure, should you proceed.

2. Empathy: Don't confuse sympathy, with empathy! Sympathy is expressing, you feel sorry, and send your best wishes, while empathy, is listening effectively, and learning/ discovering what that individual is concerned about, and clearly articulating, you relate, and can feel their pain. A successful expression, often, is, I can perfectly understand how you feel. I would feel (or felt) that way, and so would most people, until I realized a few things.

3. Answer thoroughly: Pseudo - leaders replace viable solutions, etc, with empty rhetoric and promises! In this stage, be certain to explain/ respond/ answer their question and/ or concern, to their satisfaction, not merely to yours. Realize others may not have the knowledge and/ or insights/ understanding, you possess, so slowly, patiently, respond, directly, and clearly, and wait for some acknowledgment, the concerned party, understands, where you are coming from, and your rationale/ reasoning!

4. Recreate need: Once you've successfully executed, these first 3 steps, it's important to regain control of the discussion, and bring it back to what you seek to achieve, or, your call - to - action. A simple, effective phrase, should assist you, in doing so, such as, In light of your concerns, and the additional insights you now possess, as well as the importance of this concept.

5. Close: No matter how well you perform the steps, above, unless/ until you close, and get others, to buy - into, your approach, and share ideas, you haven't led them, to anything, concrete, and/ or meaningful! A simple phrase, such as, Doesn't it make sense, creates a seamless, effective presentation.

6. May I make a suggestion?: Often, you might present in a quality manner, yet find, others, unwilling to commit to some sort of action. This is when you use, this essential, 6th step, and say, May I make a suggestion? Once you say this, do not continue speaking, until the other party, nods, or says, go ahead, etc. If you're patient, and proceed this way, I have found, in my, over 4 decades of involvement in leadership, selling, and training, nearly everyone, will give their permission. This is important, because, hopefully, it will create a habit of agreeing, or at least, some additional focus, Then, go over the 5 steps, in a clear - cut, inspiring, motivating, personal way, and seek some common ground, and meeting, of the minds!

Used properly and effectively, this technique has the potential to become a leader's best friend! Are you willing to effectively learn how to use it, practice, and feel comfortable, enough, to depend on it, whenever circumstances, indicate you will become more effective, doing so?

MY LATEST ACTIVITIES

Haven't Blogged here for a while, so I wanted to let you know what I've been up to. I have now had over 36,000 views of my over 855 Ezine Articles. It's pretty exciting! I've also done some Blogging on local issues on the Port Washington Patch.

Perhaps the most exciting two pieces of news both occurred within the past month:

1) Started a new corporation. The company is: PLAN2LEAD, LLC, and has a trademark pending. Take a look at the website at: www.plan2lead.net. The concept of PLAN2LEAD is to give the best consultations in the fields of leadership, training, management, negotiations, and event planning, as well as assist organizations in the important task of strategic planning. I will also be continuing my popular seminars on attitude adjustment, mental attitude, positive thinking, Getting a Yes, etc.

2) My novel, THE FAMILY BUSINESS was published last week on Kindle ebooks. You can download it on your Kindle, your computer, or just about any other tablet. Just use the free Kindle App. In search, just type in: Richard Brody The Family Business.

Keep following. Some exciting things coming up in the near future.

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.

Replacing Reasoning With Rhetoric Doesn't Make You Right!

After more than three decades of consulting to numerous industries and not-for-profit organizations on a variety of topics and subjects, including management, marketing, leadership, operations, conference and convention planning, negotiations, etc., I have come to recognize that most businesses and organizations suffer from the safe recurrent obstacle, when it comes to getting something accomplished. Especially in the last several years, it has become commonplace and, almost fashionable, for leaders to replace the important fundamentals required for effectively reasoning, with lots of rhetoric and "techno-jargon."

When I am listening to a person in a leadership position who finds it necessary to constantly intersperse jargon and rhetoric into the conversation, it sets off an almost "early warning system" in my brain, that this "leader" probably doesn't have a clue. Common rhetorical "warning" words include: anything to do with "governance" if it is referred to as a major priority; any reference to "managerial style" if used as an explanation for why someone will not take action; excessive use of the term, "micromanage" as something that is evil and must be avoided; an over-dependence on "delegating" responsibilities; a constant reference to "reviews" (especially if the individual refers to a specific method); constantly saying something like "staff-driven;" and especially when someone says, "I don't like to interfere," or "It's not my style," or "I'm not comfortable doing that."

Another area that is extremely disconcerting, in the last few years, is the tendency for volunteer fiscal officers to be unprepared or under-prepared as to the necessities of the position. Effective organizations create specific training programs and orientations for all new officers with any type of either fiscal responsibility or oversight.

One of the biggest obstacles that organizations today face is that far too few of their "leaders" are capable of seeing "the big picture." They often over-estimate or under-estimate situations, but all too rarely put things in their proper proportions. These individuals often demonstrate very little perception, and even less attention to detail, or follow through. Basically, these individuals repeat their rhetoric so often that they "buy into the hype," and replace reasoning with rhetoric, and this almost invariably leads to a lack of reasoning. Just because someone uses certain rhetoric and jargon does not make them right!

Many wonder why so many organizations are undergoing such difficult times today. While there are many factors involved, including economic conditions, sociological factors, time utilization, etc., those organizations that strive to make themselves relevant and a priority continue to thrive. Any organization that wishes to thrive must examine itself fully and the way it operates, and spends money, etc., but, even more importantly must emphasize training its present and future leaders on what it really means to lead.

What is a Team Player?

There is an adage that "there is no I in team," and while an over-simplification, is often the essence of effectively getting a project done, and done well. Many people confuse being a "good team player" with not taking any individual initiative. "Team players" that follow that kind of behavior rarely benefit their team of organization, but merely are often using the "team player" concept as a justification for not doing what's expected or needed of them. A good "team player" works with others in the group toward a common goal or vision, and each individual works either alone or with others toward the satisfactory completion of certain goals. However, being a "team player" certainly does not mean that an individual should "blindly" agree with others, if he has good reason to believe that he is right, and that their decision is neither well thought-out, nor beneficial to the organization.

In order to be a good "team player," one must understand the organizations needs, mission and vision. The individual must listen carefully and fully "buy into" the organization's significance. This individual must subordinate his own ego to the good of the group, and use his abilities to help the group. If the individual disagrees with the way the organization is going about achieving its goals, either believing the current methods being used are either incomplete, ineffective, or could be improved using another technique, it is the responsibility of that individual to respectfully approach the group and voice his concerns. This does not mean blaming anyone and certainly does not mean bead-mouthing anyone or anything. It means effectively explaining his case, and why changing the approach will improve the effectiveness and ability to achieve the organization's goals.

Unfortunately, all too often, individuals will accuse someone who disagrees with them of not being a good "team player." Very often, there is nothing further from the truth! If one really cares about an organization's mission, he will attempt to improve its ability to successfully achieve its goals, rather than simply following the less effective "status quo."

There is a big difference between trying to improve an organization to make it more effective, and making radical changes that changes the organization's identity, often abandoning the mission (or reason for being) of that organization. There is a clear and distinct difference between evolution and revolution. All organizations need to evolve and adapt to changing times, by improving the way certain things are done. Organizations that do that live on for a very long time, and continue to achieve and merit belonging. As I've evaluating numerous organizations over the last three decades, I have noticed that in most cases, organizations that follow the "revolutionary" approach nearly always fail, because many of their most loyal and fervent followers and supporters feel a sense of abandonment, and the reason (justification) for the organization's existence (which is its mission) no longer continues in a recognizable form.

Organizations need "team players," while nurturing leaders who have the vision to work with members for the common good of that organization!

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.

Always Do Your Best

One of the greatest obstacles that individuals who try to be effective often confront is the "burnout" factor. They often put in so much dedication and energy to get accomplished what they believe is necessary for their organization, that they often end up getting frustrated by their inability to motivate others to either understand their vision, or to act on it.

Volunteer organizations contend with many of life's "obstructions" for potential leader's attention. Since people are volunteers, they cannot be forced to devote a certain amount of time and energy, even if that is what might actually be necessary. Leaders cannot "force" others to work as hard or as effectively as they do, nor should leaders be disappointed when other people "disappoint" them. Often, I have observed someone in a leadership position say that he or she believes that a leader must delegate duties and responsibilities to others in the organization, and then let them do the job. However, like most other realities, delegation of duties and responsibilities without realistic expectations, and even more importantly, timely, reviewable reporting and accountability, generally end up with little constructive being accomplished in a timely manner. I have observed in my three plus decades in this field that delegation is more often done to avoid taking action than as a productivity booster. Since most organizations do not adequately fully train leaders at a variety of different levels, on a recurrent basis, it is not in the least surprising that often delegation fails.

Leaders must make themselves accountable and be held accountable. If a leader does something, he must always dedicate himself to do his best. Leaders must care, not to please others, because that is often either impossible or irrelevant, or both, but for self-satisfaction. A leader must take pride in his vision and his efforts.

Too many leaders try to please others, and that is often a formula for disaster. If a leader decides to do his best, and understands that's all anyone can ever do, he can avoid that natural disappointment and disillusionment. Organizations should teach this to its leaders, because former leaders could potentially be a fabulous resource for future leaders, but not if past leaders feel "burned out"

Traits Needed For Effective Leadership

We have all observed individuals in leadership positions that were quite effective, while at other times observing others who were not quite effective. Much of this occurs because so few organizations have traditionally spent adequate time properly preparing and training its future and present leaders. Some of the traits that effective leaders need, include:

(1) Effective listening is an often overlooked characteristic. While most individuals hear what is being said, few are truly effective listeners. An effective listener pays attention to the entire message being spoken, and does not immediately come to a judgment prior to hearing what is said. Quite often, if someone takes what is said out of context, without listening completely, he misses the message. Many speakers approach issues from different perspectives, and thus, it is important to listen careful, and ask the right questions. Most people tend to speak and comment before fully listening, often opening up a "Pandora's Box."

(2) True leaders need solid judgment. Leadership requires a full understanding and comfort level with entire decision making process.

(3)Effective leaders learn to understand and predict the ramifications of any actions that they take. At the same time, a leader must be able to see the "big picture," and also understand the possible circumstances causes by not acting when action might be necessary. Effective leaders are never procrastinators.

(4) One can never be a leader without being both ethical and honest.

(5) An effective leader must have sufficient self confidence in order to feel secure in his decisions, and demonstrating the willingness to "pull the trigger" on a decision.

(6) Leaders must be willing to take a stand. It is impossible to be a true leader without taking a well thought out stand, and fully understanding, as well as being able to explain, his reasoning.

(7) Leaders always represent their membership before their own interests.

(8) A good leader does not have to be the world's best public speaker, but must be an effective, confident, and welcoming speaker, who effectively communicates his message.

(9) Effective leaders exhibit the ability to motivate others.

(10) True leaders always demonstrate a dedication far above the norm.

While these are only a few of the important traits, one cannot truly lead without the traits listed above. While many are thrust into leadership positions, that is far different than the few that demonstrate effective leadership.

Follow-up Is Important To Success

A key to effective leadership that is often overlooked is proper follow-up. Too many untrained individuals, when thrust into leadership positions, often mistakenly believe that once they assign or delegate someone to do a particular task or duty, that the "job gets done." In fact, in the majority of cases, this is not the case.

As difficult as it sometimes is for a new leader to create and implement a program, that program requires careful attention and follow-up if it is to optimize its chance of succeeding. In my three decades of training leaders and managers, I have never stopped being amazed at how many of these so-called leaders naively and mistakenly "drop the ball" when it comes to effective follow-up.

I have come to believe that leaders do not effectively follow-up for a number of reasons, including:

(1) The leaders do not know how to properly follow up. Like so many aspects of leadership, individuals in leadership positions need to be trained how and why to follow up.

(2) They are afraid to offend, or appear to be condescending if they follow up. One of the basic truisms of effective leadership is that effective leaders cannot and should not concern themselves with being popular. Effective leadership requires action!

(3) Follow up requires interpersonal skills. Unfortunately, once again, many individuals do not innately possess those skills, and effective leadership training teaches those skills. However, interpersonal skills also require patience, understanding, effort, and work!

(4) Too many "leaders" do not understand the basics of time management, and how to effectively use their time. Ineffective leaders often appear swamped by the workload and responsibility of leadership.

(5) Follow-up is a necessary part of an action plan. However, since action plans are not often properly designed or detailed enough, and often do not contain the important timeline, follow-up is often a victim.

These are but a few of the tenets of follow up. Without effective follow up, even the best of ideas, plans, and programs have a poor chance of successful implementation. Those organizations that stress leadership training, and have an effective program, include a segment on follow up and its importance. Those organizations invariably experience far greater success rates than those that do not.

Leaders Can't Please Everyone

An interesting feature about human nature is that most individuals want to be liked, and if not liked, at least avoid most confrontations. However, when organizational leaders transfer that trait with them to their leadership role, it often causes or creates inefficiencies, at best, or breakdowns in a worse scenario.

In three decades of working with not-for-profits and organizations, I have observed that a large percentage of leaders, however, act as if they wish to please everyone. This often causes procrastinating, indecision, or conflicted decisions, where decisive and/ or swift action or activities might be called for. I have observed fat too many individuals in leadership positions whose "own decision" is based on the last thing they may have heard from someone. Too many organizational leaders initially determine a course of action, only to digress because they "did not wish to offend" someone. Unfortunately, a reality of effective leadership is that whenever any decision is made that is at all meaningful, and will bring forth some sort of change, there will always be supporters or proponents, as well as naysayers or opponents. Too many ineffective leaders end up getting bogged down in wishing to please everyone that it nearly paralyzes any type of effective action.

Effective leaders realize that leadership demands making decisions, and making decisions often creates an opportunity for critics. An interesting attribute of many of these critics, however, is that while they have no difficulty being critical, they rarely offer alternatives that might remedy what needs to be addressed. It is also somewhat interesting to note that many of the harshest critics are also the most thin- skinned, when one disagrees or opposes them.

Leaders must understand the decision making process, become proficient in it, be confident in their research and understanding of the issues, weigh all ramifications, put a price tag on either action or not acting (in terms of money as well as time and personnel), create a goal, then create a plan, then make the plan into an action plan,place a timeline on it, and proceed. A leaders understands and accepts criticism, yet if he followed the proper process in making his decision, should be confident in his position.

Leaders must also understand "opportunity costs." "Opportunity costs" are what the present course of action might be costing the organization in terms of lost opportunities, either in terms of appealing to donors, attracting and maintaining members, or advancing the organization's mission. Organizations must continuously evolve to not only survive, but to ensure they keep their mission viable. Leaders who spend inordinate amounts of time worrying about pleasing everyone take away from the opportunities to get things accomplished!

Setting Priorities For An Organization

Leaders of organizations are constantly facing the challenge of juggling priorities. Since most organizations do not train their leaders via a professionally designed and presented training program, many leaders are ill-prepared to use the concept of prioritization in conducting their leadership responsibilities.

The first thing that organizations need to do on a fairly regular basis is examine and reexamine their missions and Mission Statements, to assure that these missions are still relevant to the organization as it has evolved. After doing that analysis, and weighing all the ramifications of either keeping the Mission Statement static or altering it to adapt to changing times, leaders must set forth a set of priorities top adhere to during their tenure in office. These priorities should include short-term,intermediate-term, and long-term programs, objectives and goals, and a financial and time analysis of each of these. Once this analysis has been performed, leaders need to rate each program, project and event, in terms of both importance, perspective and relevance.

In my three decades of working with not-for-profits and other organizations, I have unfortunately observed that prioritizing tends to be one of the most overlooked items of leadership. The vast majority of untrained leaders tend to lead either based on some emotional attachment to an idea, a poorly conceived or understood notion, or as crisis managers. While every organization faces a "crunch time" which may or may not be perceived as a crisis, well trained leaders pre-plan for contingencies, and tend to be better able to cope when some difficult event occurs. However, when leaders do not properly use priority leadership as a core concept, very often ill-prepared leaders then spend too much time on non-priority items, and inadequate time on important ones. Using priority management techniques, leaders are far more capable of avoiding getting bogged down in minutia, and continue to see and understand the big picture.

What Is An Action Plan?

We often hear individuals talk about the importance of creating and utilizing an action plan, yet few individuals who are leaders of organizations ever fully take advantage of the usefulness of action plans. Action plans not only provide guidelines and guidance, but create a methodology to accomplish ones objectives.

The first thing one must do is create an objective or goal of a particular project or goal. This objective should be broken into long-term, intermediate-term and short-term needs. Once an objective has been decided upon, that objective must be examined to assure that it is in line with an organization's mission. If an organization's mission is in contradiction with a particular project's objective, leadership must examine if this contradiction is acceptable, if it makes it unworkable, or if either the mission or the objective needs updating or adjustment. Leaders must fully examine all ramifications of taking such an action, however, before they decide on any such action.

Once this procedure has been accomplished, it must be determined what the priorities of this plan are. There must be long-term, intermediate-term, and short-term objectives and/or goals, and the plan must be a workable program to accomplish the objectives.

This means that an action plan must list each action that needs to be taken, in a time order. It must also include alternative actions that might be used if a plan needs some "tweaking." Each of these actions must be broken up into sub-categories, and the intermediate steps must be listed, and a timetable placed for each one. The responsible individual for each part of the plan must be noted, as well as a "Need by date." In addition, there must be a strategy for thorough follow-up and examination of the action plan on an ongoing basis, as well as a mechanism for making needed adjustments.

Part of the action plan is also a cost evaluation. These costs include not only the actual expense in terms of both monies and possible lost revenues, as well as the costs in terms of personnel costs and time. Possible costs also include potential ramifications from existing members, who may not favor the changes being proposed.

One must always remember that an action plan has little value if it is either undeveloped, not fully developed, or does not move from the exercise stage to the implementation and action stage. Since many leaders prefer using rhetoric to actually taking action, an effective action plan will only work if leaders are properly trained in all aspects of use.

This discussion is only a beginning in terms of the realities of an action plan. However, my three decades of experience have clearly demonstrated that effective organizations always take advantage of creating and using action plans.

Ethics are Essential to Leadership

Many leaders find themselves with the dilemma of being popular versus making the sometimes difficult, yet necessary decisions. True leaders understand that leadership requires managing by following one's principles, and being guided by what is ethical and responsible.

In many organizations, this battle is exacerbated by the fact that it is often difficult to find qualified leaders, as well as by the fact that the vast majority of organizations do not have any type of true leadership training. In the past three decades, I have observed that while most organizations believe that they engage in leadership training, since this training does not encompass those necessities of leadership, and are generally neither professionally prepared or presented, little is achieved. The obstacle is that since most existing leaders are neither trained nor fully qualified, and therefore do not fully understand how to train leaders, it is often difficult for those "leaders" to "let go," and permit an organized, consistent and ongoing leadership training program to be conducted.

In general, human nature is such that most people strive to be liked and/or admired. However, since being liked is not a guiding principle for effective leadership, there is often a breakdown in the leadership process. Doing the right thing for the organization, without fear of hurting one's popularity, is, in fact, essential to effective leadership.

Leaders must be guided by the principles of morality, ethics, and, specifically, being guided by what is in the best interests of the organization. Effective leaders realize that doing that many not be popular, but is often necessary. Undoubtedly, there would be more effective and qualified leaders if organizations prioritized professional and ongoing leadership training.

In observing organizations for three decades, I am consistently amazed that following principles and ethics is the exception rather than the rule. If an organization is to fluorish, it needs effective leadership.

Leadership Training Priorities

In my three decades of management and leadership consulting and training, it has become abundantly clear to me that adequate and effective leadership is a major obstacle and challenge for most organizations. Most organizations neither effectively qualify potential leaders nor have a mechanism in place to assure that leaders maximize their potential to succeed. I generally recommend that organizations emphasize and prioritize leadership training. These are the basics of leadership training, and the components that all successful programs include:

(1) An organization must have programs for various levels of leadership. The first level is entry level, or early leadership identification and development. These individuals are also known as the future leaders. Next, there is intermediate leadership training, or training leaders at the local and/or lower levels of the organization. There must then be advanced training, for those entering Board or Trustee levels of leadership. Finally, there must be elite training, for those involved in the highest leadership positions of an organization.

(2) Organizations must train in what is required to be a leader. In other words, "How to be a leader?"

(3) What are the skills required for leadership? These include communication,effective listening, negotiations, staff oversight, member relations, decision making, etc.

(4) How to market the organization? This means getting existing members more involved, lapsed members excited again, and potential members to join, as well as exciting donors and potential donors./

(5) How to clearly elucidate the mission statement of the organization? This includes clearly creating one that effectively yet briefly explains the importance of the organization, what it does and what it stands for.

(6) Leaders must understand all aspects of motivation.

(7) Leaders must be trained to be able to both write an effective letter, and give an adequate and motivating speech and/ or address.

(8) How to answer objections? Leaders must fully be able to use the five steps to answering an objection.

(9) How to effectively work with co-leaders and staff? What should a leader expect?

(10) What is the difference between micromanaging and effective management? What must be done before a leader can effectively delegate responsibilities?

(11) Leaders must fully understand the organization.

(12) Leaders must be trained to fully utilize all aspects of the decision making process, and understand all potential ramifications, both positive and negative, of either making a decision and taking action, or conversely, what might occur if no action is taken.

(13) What are the components of leadership judgment? What is involved in the process?

(14) Leaders must learn the basics of negotiation, as well as the pitfalls of contracts.

(15) When should a leader and an organization use a consultant, and when not to do? What should an organization look for in a consultant?

These fifteen items are just the "tip of the iceberg." However, when one evaluates and compares the most effective organizations and compares that to those that flounder, in the vast majority of cases, a significant difference is the concentration on leadership training and qualification. Today, many organizations seem to be suffering from a dearth of leadership and involvement, and one of the major causes of that, is the lack of concentration on developing and training its leaders.

Steps to Getting It Done!

There comes a time when we all grow weary of those individuals who are constantly putting their "two cents" in, but never follow through on anything. In my three decades of consulting, I have come to refer to these individuals as the "talkers," or the annoying individuals who love to give suggestions, but almost never do anything about it.

Organizations and their leaders need to recognize the need to "get it done." This means that while coming up with an idea is a good starting point, that is all it is, and should not be misconstrued as any type of actual action! It is always far easier to criticize a plan or an idea, than it is to actually give an alternative. Since no plan, no matter how well designed and planned, is ever perfect, and there is always room for improvement, there is always something available to criticize. However, when I consult to an organization, or conduct a leadership training program, I "forbid" empty criticisms that merely object, unless they are accompanied by alternative courses of action. Therefore, I recommend that all leaders, and all organizations, develop a course of action, or, in other words, "Steps for Getting It Done." Organizations and leaders would be well served to use the following suggestions to develop their own customized "steps":

(1) Fully develop the concept. That means that an idea should be thought of in terms of what its goals are, what the timetable is, the reason for the change; and the possible positive and/ or negative ramifications.

(2) What are the financial impacts, both in terms of out-of-pocket expense or investment, as well as in terms of time commitment?

(3) Will this plan endanger any other aspect of the organization?

(4) How will members view this plan?

(5) How will you communicate the plan to members, donors, etc?

(6) What is the action plan? Who will be responsible for overseeing the plan? What will the oversight consist of?

(7) What is the timetable?

(8) Why might someone object to this idea?

(9) Will this plan be a top, intermediate, or low priority?

(10) What will be the follow through?

(11) How will you track this plan?

(12) Is this a short-term, intermediate or long-term endeavor?

(13) What do you hope to achieve?

(14) Are the goals achievable?

(15) Since a leaders tenure in office is limited, how will you ensure its continuity?

These are just a few of the questions that organizations and leaders should always ask, and that most organizations do not. Probably the biggest challenge that most organizations have is a dearth of true leadership, because most organizations do not commit enough time, resources or energy to prioritizing leadership training. Because of this, in most organizations, leaders ascend to positions that they are not prepared for, and many organizations either flounder or, at the very least, do not achieve their optimum results!