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
Enjoy the Home of the RICH IDEAS, + RICH BRODY'S TAKE, w/ Blogs about RE, negotiations, finance, etc., Leadership Planning, politics, etc. While there are many points of view, this blog is intended to "cut through the spin," and provide a unique, innovative and provocative insight into current issues. The intent of the blog is to be updated several times per week. Real estate info: http://PortWashingtonLongIslandRealEstate.com and the PLAN2LEAD website: http://plan2lead.net
Thursday, November 11, 2010
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."
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)