Tag Archive for: management

God Help Your Risk Takers…

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Recent studies show that references to God in prompts to survey subjects lead them to take on more risky behaviors. This can have interesting implications for your strategy.

If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve seen multiple references to the need for leaders to underwrite risks and back their people.  I’ve cast this as the need for leaders to say “I’ve got your back.”

Here’s a post that goes into that concept in some depth.

Now, researchers at Stanford University have published studies that show people seeking more risk when they are reminded of God before making a choice between lower risk behaviors and higher risk behaviors.

Here’s a link to an article that outlines the findings.

The researchers posed various choices between higher risk and lower risk behaviors, and varied whether there were subtle references to God in the prompt.  For instance, an ad for skydiving might say, “Find skydiving near you!” or it might read, “God knows what you are missing. Find skydiving near you!”

The studies also differentiated between high risk behaviors in a moral sense and high risk behaviors in a non-moral sense.  Prior studies have shown that religious people tend to take fewer “moral” risks than non-religious people.

The summary of the study is this:

“…people are willing to take [more] risks because they view God as providing security against potential negative outcomes.”

Some implications for the strategist and leader:

The gist of this study is that when people believe they have some backing, even by supernatural forces, they are willing to do “more” than they otherwise would.

They view the security as valuable.

A few implication come to mind:

1.  People will take more risks if they know somebody is underwriting it, even (and especially?) God – You and I need to be good at letting people know when we have their backs.  Simple phrases like, “I know this is a risk, but it’s one that I’m taking, not you” can go a long way to putting people’s minds on business strategy instead of survival strategy.

2.  The source of risk backing has to be credible to the person taking the risk – It’s not enough for you and me as strategists and leaders to know that we have the backs of the people taking risks for us…we have to show, credibly, that we have sponsored others through tough risks and failure.  Religions form around stories;  so does your risk taking (or risk-averse) culture.

3. People have to be reminded – It’s important for people to know constantly that risk taking is backed by someone or something. In the study referenced above, people made marginally different choices by merely being prompted with the word “God.”  In your organization, simple prompts make that much difference.  When people are contemplating risks in your organization, do the prompts come with “I’ve got your back,” or do they come with “You’d better not mess it up…”?

All of this matters for you and me as leaders and as strategists.

Strategies involve taking risk.  Otherwise, they aren’t really a strategy.

They also involve people taking risks on behalf of the company and themselves.

Unless, and until, we get good at being clear on the risks we expect other people to take, and have credibility on the point, our people will take fewer risks.

Compound that with the converse situation that tends to get more play at the water cooler in risk averse cultures–namely, constant references to the negative things that happen to risk takers–and the leverage of a few simple words and actions becomes clear.

God help your risk takers…

Why Your Entrepreneurs Leave

/3 Comments/in , /by

In large organizations, if board oversight and management incentives aren’t aligned with value creation, entrepreneurial mindsets can and will be crushed by “iron bureaucrats.”

In a recent post, I juxtaposed the decision-making approaches applied by hard core entrepreneurs and those applied by big company executives.  My thesis was that big company execs can learn from the decision making approach applied by entrepreneurs, if only their incentive structures can allow for it.

One reader, Graham Moores, responded on LinkedIn with this comment:

“In my experience the collaboration between Entrepreneurs and Executives is what should be aimed for, when one side does not understand and respect the other, problems will exist.”

This is a fantastic point, and in the ideal world, makes great sense.

If we can couple the entrepreneurial mindset of building businesses and bearing risk with the executive mindset of allocating resources and protecting against downside; all can win.

However, as Mr. Moores noted, the two sides often don’t understand one another; and therein lies the rub…

Why are real entrepreneurs so often bred out of large organizations?

The classical answers tend to be given offhand.  They include that big organizations move too slow, are too risk averse, and are double ungood at listening to new ideas.

These “reasons” tend to imply that large organizations are uncomfortable for people with an entrepreneurial bent.

That may be true…

But…

I’d argue the real reason entrepreneurship is bred out of large orgs is actually rooted in an organizational phenomenon best articulated by science fiction author Jerry Pournelle.  It has been called the “Iron Law of Bureaucracy.”

I’m capturing it from his website, but it has been quoted in many other places.

It reads (with my emphasis added):

“In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

If we replace Pournelle’s well-known government-connected bureaucracies with some generic corporate examples, then you and I can start to see how this law applies to the problem of entrepreneurship and executive management.

It could easily read as follows (to be clear, all edits are my own and I present it only for conjecture):

“In any business bureaucracy there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are people dedicated to customer satisfaction, product excellence, and advancing the organization’s reputation among employees, customers, and the community…

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples include executives and administrators who focus exclusively on defending position, avoiding risk, and managing to the letter of all incentives.

It’s plausible to argue that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

What this might mean is that instead of large organizations being uncomfortable for entrepreneurial people, they actually become actively hostile to people who want to rock the boat in the name of building value.

The two don’t merely misunderstand each other; they grow to be fundamentally incompatible.

And, since the second group is far more likely to play the bureaucracy game with alacrity, its most senior representatives will eventually call the shots, just as Pournelle’s law states.

They are the “Iron Bureaucrats.”

So what?  Isn’t that just life?

Well, sort of.

As my reader, Mr. Moores, noted, it’s actually ideal if the entrepreneurial and executive mindsets can coexist and collaborate.  We want large organizations to both embrace business building and risk taking while at the same time embracing discipline and risk awareness.

That’s a good strategy.

But how?

Much of the time, this comes down to the inherent bent of the CEO and senior management.  If the CEO is an iron bureaucrat, then entrepreneurs will struggle.

If the CEO is a closet entrepreneur, even within the trappings of a large bureaucracy, then entrepreneurs can thrive.  One need only look at some of the shifts in strategy at bellwether companies like IBM, Apple, Nucor and many others over the years to see the evidence of this factor.

The other factor is the incentive set that is outlined for senior executives.  In a sort of Judo move, boards can take an iron bureaucrat’s best strength (hitting the numbers) and make it work for the long term value of the company by measuring business building activity aggressively.

So, while entrepreneurs are likely to be bred out of large organizations, they don’t have to be.  Through better board oversight (particularly on the philosophical bent of the CEO) and incentive alignment (particularly around business building) the curse of the Iron Bureaucrat can be overcome.

It’s always great to get thoughtful responses on blog posts, regardless of platform; and I hope you’ll add your thoughts here.

 

The Chinese Food of Corporate Leadership

/1 Comment/in , /by

Attaching real change to ubiquitous communications can save you from providing an ultimately unsatisfying change experience for your organization, shareholders, and community. 

The best management science surrounding corporate performance transformation comes with a hefty dollop of behavioral science.

Focus on the people, start with the “why,” ensure purpose, drive for meaning… Anyone who has read the likes Heath, Pink, and Sinek see these soft aspects of transformation leadership writ large.

And they have their place, for sure.

The best transformational leadership and influencing models therefore come not only with tangible change agendas (initiatives grounded in real strategic issues a given company needs to solve) but also in strong influencing tactics, including emphases on structured communications and leadership behaviors to “show” that change is happening.

But, there’s a rub…

With an overwhelming set of tools available for communication these days ranging from in person to multimedia to social media, and with a solid base of “new age” thinking like those listed above directing companies to talk about purpose and reasons for action; companies can have an overweening focus on communication as the action itself.

The result?  Communications are delivered with very high-minded ideals but without much substance or action.

They become a passing thing, kind of like the full feeling after a Chinese food meal.  In 30 minutes, you wonder why you are so hungry again.

Thus, communication without grounding in action is the Chinese food of corporate leadership.

Why is it unsatisfying, and why do corporate leaders go there?

Why has this become the case?  I can list a few hypotheses…

  • Communication is typically deficient – Yes, that’s the starting point that leads to efforts to “lead with communication.”  Leaders are busy. They get distracted from the day to day hygiene of good, solid communication. So, they over correct.

 

  • It’s fashionable to demand transparency in organizations – It’s actually ok (and, indeed, I encourage it) for employees to seek meaning and reason for their work these days… So, leaders go to communication first because it’s what people want.

 

  • Communication has become simultaneously easier and harder – Employees can be bombarded with messages, creating a situation where the ease of communicating actually destroys the effectiveness of it (How many of you reading this read every corporate email you receive???  Hmmm?).  So, leaders can resort to it early and often, far easier, in fact than actually creating action.

 

So, leaders communicate, but they aren’t strategic about it.  They “flood the channel” with communication for communication’s sake.

And, in the process, they create a tone deaf employee base resistant to listening to most any communication.

The implication?  Enterprise-level and line-level leaders have to do a better job of connecting communication with actual action.

But, how? 

The easiest remedy to the Chinese food dilemma is to avoid creating tone deafness from the start by ensuring that strategic arguments delivered to the organization are backed with action.

However, that’s not always possible.

So, the next best thing is to attach communication as an adjunct to good, solid change management.

In one client partnership, we have accomplished this by attaching communications to explicit efforts and milestones in the company’s strategic plan.

We limit the commentary on what is “coming” since many changes that are “on the come” slip into oblivion, and stay very concrete with communications linked to actions that specific people are leading.

In this way, communications that previously might have sounded like “We are upgrading our approaches to product development” start to sound like “This week we launched an effort to re-draw our product prototyping process, led by Jane Smith and focused on providing customer impact in the next quarter…”

In this way, we provide a filling meal of communication and action on the same plate.  We also engage people around real concepts instead of nebulous, amorphous strategy-speak.

You should try it.

But beware:  Trying it may show you how far from action you already are.

On “Best” Company Lists and the Incentives they Create

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lists that tout the “best” companies without actually measuring what the “best” is can be problematic in today’s image over substance world.

Liz Ryan, Founder and CEO of Human Workplace, writing as a contributor to Forbes, outlines how “best companies to work for” lists get the whole thing wrong.

Here is YOUR LINK

The operative passage (and I hope you read this after you’ve already clicked the link above) is this:

“I don’t trust “Best Places to Work” lists, because I was an HR person for five thousand years. I know that you can have lovely ­looking policies and programs for employees, but they don’t mean anything if the air in the place is heavy. If it isn’t a fun place to work — if people don’t trust one another, if the managers treat the employees like children, and if you can’t bring yourself to work all the way — then weight machines and free lunches can’t make it any better.

Unfortunately, it’s easier for some management teams to talk about gyms and lunches than to talk about fear and trust. They are too fearful to talk about fear!”

In taking down the “Best Places to Work” lists, Liz goes on to take down the game that results in them, namely that companies employ them as PR and branding programs.

She says:

“‘Best Places to Work’ listings are PR stunts that aren’t based on real employee feedback.”

But, there’s more…

I have a somewhat ambivalent to negative point of view on these sorts of lists. Having worked for and within companies that are featured on various and sundry of them, I think that Liz Ryan’s take is probably right.  Still, the lists that I’m most familiar with do make an effort to take in employees points of view, and they certainly do knock out companies for not meeting a given bar on the employee survey side.

So, I suppose there is some integrity to them.

But they do cause problems. And, I figured I’d list a few points that make these lists, their impact, and the incentives created around them a potential problem for the companies and the very people they are intended to help…namely all of us reading the lists and using them to make choices.  Some of the problems include that:

1. The inputs and nominations for the lists are self generated – This is essentially Ryan’s point:  If you look at the content generated for these lists, it is generally provided by the employers themselves.  In some cases, policies and perks are in the mind of an executive when they are put on paper explicitly for the survey, and it’s never referenced again.  Face it, it’s a fact.  Ryan basically says if you want to know whether a restaurant is a good one, don’t ask the proprietor, ask the patrons (and, especially, erstwhile patrons).  If you want to know whether a policy is in place, don’t ask the owner of the policy, ask 15 other people and see what you get.

2. The lists drive companies to plan around them –  Companies view the lists as critical to successful branding and talent attraction, and so they create executive incentives for their company to be on them. Human Resources and other executives are given incentives, sometimes heavy ones, to get on a given list.

3. The incentives, of course, can have unintended consequences –  When executives are incentivized not with creating a “best” company, but rather with crafting a “best” response to a “best” survey, then behavior can get confusing and, frankly, cynical.  Real issues that are brought to the fore (say in terms of fairness or application of policies) but that have no bearing on the surveys (which may not test for these hard to get at issues), are dismissed as “unimportant.”  This may sound harsh, but incentives matter. In the worst cases, less than mature or overly incentive-driven executives huff and puff at people who actually bring up real issues that don’t matter to the “bests” lists.

4. Surveyors stroke the egos of executives, creating an incrementalist approach to change – The surveyors, who do in my experience give feedback to companies that participate but do not make their lists, feed the egos of the executives (not the needs of the people) in dangerous ways by constantly explaining how “close” a company has come to making the list. It’s a “just a little more and you’ll be there” exercise.

I have yet to hear of a “bests” list survey team that will walk into a C-suite and say “Hey, bub, you aren’t even close…the people here not only dislike working here, but they dislike you and your team; and think you are only trying to make us, the survey team, happy.”

Such a surveyor wouldn’t last long.  So, those messages are given are incremental at best. “Just a wee bit more engagement,” or “we can see your progress and encourage you to keep doing what you are doing” is what gets said.  The implication is that executives are rarely caused to reflect by not making the list.  In the absence of the ego stroking “independent” evaluator, execs might have to take more drastic measures to change a culture in freefall.

5. Executives can revert to blaming in some unsavory ways – With knowledge that their organization is “so close” to making the list reinforced by the survey teams, execs might resort to blaming the organization or, in extreme circumstances, the survey team.  The “our employees don’t know how good they have it” ad hominem is a useful tool when explaining middling survey results and other yellow flags.  As a bonus, execs will also blame the survey team for mis-timed surveys (for instance for surveying during times that are too hot, too cold, too busy, or too boring).  When you are “so close” you look for small reasons for the miss, not big drivers.

6. Companies getting “so close” start teaching to the test – The lists become the “thing” and not the outcomes the list was intended to measure. Companies start teaching to the test.  They solve for a gym when a gym isn’t on anybody’s list.  They solve for engagement by throwing parties and handing out t-shirts when engagement is really about a much harder search for common meaning.  In short, they change the construction of a complex interpersonal environment into a check-the-box test; and fail in the process.

7. They focus on the survey when it really doesn’t fit – The “test” might not even fit a given corporate environment. For example, many of the “best places to work” lists are overloaded with professional services, marketing, and “knowledge work” firms and underloaded with manufacturing, materials, and blue collar firms.  The time and energy wasted in responding to a PR exercise could be better spent on improving the human dynamics in the actual company; but the survey distracts from this.

8. Sometimes the best companies know better – I know of at least one extraordinary global firm that has wrestled with the decision on whether to take the time and energy necessary to participate in these surveys. The reason?  The company defines great for itself, and doesn’t necessarily seek outside validation. It’s a compelling argument; but it MUST come with a highly reflective, listening-oriented leadership team (and it does in this particular firm).  The implication of this “opt out” factor is that people looking to due diligence a potential employer really can’t tell anything by the lists, because sometimes great companies skip the exercise altogether, and opt outs aren’t necessarily publicized.

9. Companies ignore and sometimes play into the conflicts of interest inherent to these surveys – This is perhaps the most critical factor in the “best” survey business, so I’m going to take a few more paragraphs on it.

As a rule, these surveys are meant to make the surveyors money. They are rarely if ever a public service.

Any businessperson can tell you that an activity that produces a salable report every…single…year better come with some provocative changes every…single…year or else what’s it good for?  Imagine a magazine that had the same article every month. That is what you would get if the surveys didn’t mix it up.  So, the surveys are geared to be interesting PR, and that’s what the surveyors want from their participants.  It’s not clear that interesting PR and highly engaged, stable, effective workforce always go together.

Desiring churn in the name of salable product is the first conflict of interest.  After all, companies staying on the list year after year is actually not what is best for the surveyor selling its results.

Farther than this, some survey companies have gone so far as to attempt to create franchises around their surveys, including consulting firms, licensing agreements, and any number of other entanglements that can start to look like good old payola.

To wit, in October 2014, David Lazarus at the LA Times posted an article about the conflicts inherent to the business model used by Ethisphere in creating its “Worlds Most Ethical Companies” list.  His assertion?  Companies pay to use the Ethisphere logo, they pay to have their survey processed, and they pay to be a part of Ethisphere’s events and alliances. They can also pay Ethisphere to benchmark their ethics programs outside of the survey.  All of this while Ethisphere serves as, ostensibly, an independent evaluator.

Ethisphere’s issues as an impartial evaluator have run hot and cold for years (starting with an article in Slate in 2010 that was quite scathing prior to some restructuring by Ethisphere, and later articles have defended or attacked their practices).  As an executive and advisor, I have been on the inside of at least 9 of the companies honored by Ethisphere, and while believing strongly in the principles that Ethisphere hopes to uphold can also say that, on the ground level and when it comes to individual executives: Your mileage may vary.

Ethisphere’s “most ethical” list gets a couple of lines from me because out of all the topics that “best” lists can cover, ethics is the one I’m not sure you can every, really survey.  The late collegiate basketball coach Dean Smith was known for once saying “you should never be proud of doing the right thing, you should just do the right thing.”

I think there’s a lot of truth to that.

No one ever says “They are the most ethical, be sure to ask them about it.”

To know a company’s ethical bearing, you have to go to the source of ethical tension, which is in the defining moments faced by that organization’s leaders every day in dealing with all stakeholders. I’ve said it before:  A defining moment is when two fundamental beliefs are in conflict with one another–people vs. profit dilution, transparency vs. legally required disclosure, honesty or efficiency.

It’s tough to say which company is “best” during those moments of truth, because many companies and their leaders haven’t had to face them all that often.  Impeccable ethics don’t reside in policy and procedure.  They reside in decisions and actions.

Being untested (or, frankly, merely the best at keeping our dirty laundry in the hamper) is not grounds for being labeled the “best.” The same is true of pretty much any subjective “best” list, whether it is best places to work, most reputable, most welcoming, most flexible, or otherwise.

Go to the source.

And, that’s where Liz Ryan leaves it, as will I…

 Liz Ryan says:
“If you want to hear what employees think about a workplace, check out the reviews on Glassdoor and remember to trust your instincts above all other sources.”

The short advice from me for those looking to due diligence a company from a reputation, ethics, or work environment standpoint is this:

  • Go to Glassdoor–just as Ms. Ryan says–if you want to see what people think of their company and how that is trending

 

  • Lacking a reliable base of responses on Glassdoor (which is still building), I’d go to the source. LinkedIn has made that maddeningly–for bad employers–simple.  I say maddeningly only because bad employers have lost control of the messaging.

 

  • For other issues, I’d go to companies’ communities, suppliers and customers (current and former) if I want to know about its ethics. And finally,

 

  • I’d be sure to trust my gut when things seem iffy–if the air seems heavy, it probably is. 

 

My advice for corporate execs thinking about how to “use” these surveys for PR or other purposes is threefold:

  • First, focus on the issues, not on the test. I’d, honestly, focus on what people want compared to the mission of the organization vs. what some list tells me my organization should look like.

 

  • Second, sure, I’d reference the surveys and what gets people excited outside my company–one has to attract talent, but I’d also ensure the internal voices are the most listened to.  I’m not sure that’s always the case.

 

  • Finally, consider the straitjacket that being on such a list might actually represent before deciding to participate.  Being called reputable by somebody who really doesn’t want you to be called reputable every…single…year should give you pause when you think about the implications of falling off such a list.

 

Oh, and I’d also talk to people who used to work there.  They give you insight and in most cases have nothing to “lose” by sharing a bit.

Once again, LinkedIn has made that a piece of cake.

Know what great is for you and the organization you lead, and work to represent it through thought and action.

Leadership That’s Always Winter, Never Christmas

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Icy children’s stories from today and yesterday contain leadership lessons for us all.

I’m sitting here this morning in the aftermath of one of the nastier ice “storms” that we’ve had here in the upstate of South Carolina during my residence in this fantastic region. I use scare quotes around “storm” because I have to admit, I’ve never quite understood the term “ice storm” after living for years in Dallas, Texas and now Spartanburg, SC.

Ice doesn’t really “storm,” it just kind of builds up over time.

Which is actually a pretty cool real world analogy for the topic of this post, so…enjoy.

The benefit of being near joy and wonder…

One of the benefits of having 4 young children is that I get to relive childhood (constantly, some would say) with a grown-up eye on childish things. I get to experience joy, fear, and wonder through the eyes of four developing youngsters.

I also get to see, firsthand, the impact that storytelling has on our psyches, both good and bad.

I’m convinced that the power of storytelling never really goes away. A strong narrative delivered with integrity is just as powerful in helping adults understand and change behavior as it is for children.

it’s just an underused (and sometimes misused) tool.

Sometimes, referencing childish narratives with grown up eyes brings to light some pretty interesting and serious insights that apply to our adult lives.

If you’ve been with me for a while as I’ve dabbled in these posts, you’ve possibly seen my stab at a list of non-business books that business people should read. It’s here.

Number 2 on that rather eclectic and certainly incomplete list was the book Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Orwell was certainly onto something when he built his little allegory of a communist gangster takeover of an idyllic farm. It’s worth another look for anyone looking at social and hierarchical power dynamics in the organizations of today, particularly where there is extreme stress on words like “collaboration” and “teamwork.”

That digression aside, the reality is that narratives, even and perhaps especially those meant for children, have lessons.

I’m struck recently by the leadership narratives brought on by three icebound stories that have permeated popular culture. That they all deal with ice is only the more convenient this morning as I write this…

Three Profiles in Icy Leadership

The three children’s stories that have leadership narratives with icy “teeth,” which I’ll place in ascending “destructive” order, are:

1. Disney’s Frozen

The “leadership” plot: Poor Elsa, afflicted with fantastic powers to create ice and snow at her whim, freezes her entire kingdom. Through the travails of many friends and the schemes of a few enemies, Elsa learns to control her powers and balance them for the good of the kingdom (and herself). The kicker: True love.

The leadership lesson: Frozen is a story of unconscious incompetence writ large. You’ve probably experienced a fantastically talented leader who inadvertently freezes everything around him or her. You may have been one!

This leader creates an atmosphere of fear and mistrust that drives out all action and vibrance. But, this leader is actually coachable in the end.

In my experience, this is the profile of many, many young, smart, driven leaders who step into leadership situations that are challenging. They take control, dictate, panic, and ultimately freeze all the people around them because it’s all they have known over time. Maybe you have personally been here…

How to solve it: The key to the “Elsa” leader is to turn unconscious leadership incompetence (essentially a lack of self awareness around others who don’t have his or her powers) into conscious competence through coaching, feedback, and repetition.

Most organizations have a few Elsas in their midst. They need to be nurtured and coached, or else they progress toward our next to profiles.

2. Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen

The “leadership” plot: The Snow Queen, a story from 1845, was a very distant feed-in to the plot line for Frozen. “Very distant” meaning that the stories lack resemblance to one another.

Interestingly, the Snow Queen’ leadership foibles fall somewhere in the middle of the three vignettes here. The Snow Queen is a necessary and fantastically talented leader, being the leader of the hive of bees that bring snow to the world.

She, however, chooses to enslave a young boy who has been accidentally afflicted with splinters of glass from a magical mirror that freeze his heart and pollute his eyes–causing him to have affinity for the cold queen, to see the flaws in all that is beautiful, and to see all that is awful in an amplified way.

The Snow Queen takes the boy, whose heart is already cold, and freezes him further. The boy, blinded by his affliction, is pleased with her. The Snow Queen maintains her grip on the boy by telling him he can have his freedom once he completes a relatively simple task (spelling “Eternity” with shards of ice) that he just…can’t…figure…out.

Eventually the boy is freed by the love of his best friend, who warms his heart, washes away the splinters of glass, and lets him see the world, and the Snow Queen’s leadership, as it is.

The leadership lesson: The Snow Queen is a purposeful leader who has chosen to entrap a young soul for her amusement or benefit. You may have encountered this type in your experience.

The leadership lesson in this one is that individuals should be asked to serve to their highest ability, not to the whim of the leader. The Snow Queen leader doesn’t get this, and instead wants his or her followers to think they are in the best position they could possibly be in while he or she dictates their career.

How to solve it: Because these three vignettes are a progression from least bad to worst, this one is a bit tougher than the first. Most importantly, followers need to be willing to test whether their leaders are creating win-win career situations, or merely playing people into roles that are advantageous to the leader. On the leader side, having a few strong sounding boards outside of his or her organization can prevent the tunnel vision that results in pigeon holing people and getting less out of an organization than is possible.

All of this, of course, pales in comparison to the next profile…

3. C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

The “leadership” plot: Because the book is a Christian allegory (and quite a good one), most of the leadership focus in analysis of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is on the Christ figure, Aslan the Lion. Since none of us is going to have the power that Aslan had, I’d propose the real leadership lesson comes from the reign of Jadis, the White Witch.

The White Witch presides over a Narnian kingdom where she has commanded it to be endlessly winter, while at the same time purposefully preventing Christmas from ever coming.

Thus, in the kingdom, it is “always winter, but never Christmas.” In the precise brilliance that is C.S. Lewis’ writing, this phrase sums up so many leadership regimes in so many companies and institutions.

The White Witch is a terror. She is evil. She is enabled by an entourage of characters who have her back. She puts a bounty on any human who enters Narnia, effectively enlisting the entire population not against threats to the Kingdom, but threats to her own reign. Her most terrifying capability is that she can turn her enemies to stone…She has decorated her castle with statues formed of people who chose to dissent or disobey.

The leadership lesson: The White Witch is a leader with a conscious focus on self aggrandizement through a reign of terror. Leaders who fall into this category tend to be those who were not coached or apprenticed in their early years and who happened to be surrounded by and benefit from people that the leader was able to influence unduly as they rose to power. In short, I’m not sure there is a lesson, other than to intervene before the White Witch becomes the White Witch.

How to solve it: Leadership change tends to be the only way to overcome a charming but consciously vindictive and well protected leader. Usually, like in the story of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, it requires outside intervention (sometimes, ironically, resulting in the “demise” of the intervener). Bosses, boards, and peers have to identify the leader by virtue of his or her cultivation of a menagerie of henchmen and a garden of noble stone statues.

I hope you never encounter the corporate equivalent of the White Witch.

What’s the big deal?

So, why take an hour and a half of my day to write this? Well, first, the ice storm allowed it. That’s a picture of the deck outside my home office you see at the start of this article.

It turns out that having an open moment on the calendar is a fun thing when one of your hobbies is trying to push to a higher level of strategic and business leadership understanding and discourse (yes, I’d enjoy your comments).

Second, I think the lesson I’m writing on this morning is that the intersection of power and responsibility is real.

All of these leaders were fantastically powerful and talented in a raw sense.

The first type, the Elsa leader, has no idea that her power can freeze the world around her if she is not careful; and she has to learn.

The second kind, the Snow Queen leader, can only break out of icy habits by understanding that the people she leads should have an informed say in the matter.

The third kind, the White Witch leader, is in most cases a lost cause, polluted by power and ossified by suspicion and paranoia. She needs a re-set.

Though they are all powerful, these leaders’ senses of responsibility move steadily from outside themselves to inside themselves. There’s a point to reflect on in that reality.

Our children get to experience stories of wonder and consequence. Sometimes, it’s good that we revisit them as adults to understand that the authors of these stories–in most cases adults–were inspired by real, grown up problems.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post: Ice doesn’t really “storm,” it just builds up. Such is the case with leadership profiles outlined here…Hopefully, with a little foresight, we can get good at guiding the budding leaders in our midst away from these particular end points.

May your iciest experiences be preludes to the celebration of Christmas (or the holiday of your choice), and not the harbinger of an eternal blizzard…

Leadership and the Infinite Monkey

/0 Comments/in /by

The vision-less leader is like the proverbial monkey on a typewriter…Or even worse.

Options are a good thing. We all want options.

Chocolate or vanilla?

White or wheat?

Paper or plastic?

Options, to a point, are the spice of life.

But, there’s a breed of leader out there whose approach to leadership amounts only to options.

Too many options.

Options without conviction.

Options without vision.

Options without time boundaries, rules, triggers, or values. Just options.

“Try them all” says he,

“One of them might work.”

Generally, this leader has limited concept of or care for the burden “trying them all” comes with; but revels in the knowledge that something might happen.

He doesn’t know what.

But, perhaps when it happens he’ll know.

This leader’s style is a manifestation of the so-called “infinite monkey theorem.”

And a tortuous style it is.

What’s an infinite monkey leader?

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey on a typewriter, banging away, will eventually bang out the complete works of Shakespeare…If only given enough time.

He won’t know he has done it, and he will certainly have wasted a lot of time and energy in the process; but still, with enough time, he believes he will find success.

An infinite monkey leader works the same way: Bang away on enough keys and something good is bound to happen.

Call on enough random phone numbers and you are bound to make a sale.

Invest in enough projects and one is bound to “pop.”

Keep plugging away at a given project providing no financial returns and producing only noise because, you know, it is bound to straighten out.

Churn through enough people and you are bound to find a good subordinate.

The defining characteristic of an infinite monkey leader is the lack of conviction to narrow down and attack.

Instead, the leader only arrays resources against broad fronts, never narrow; and only attacks in rolling waves, never in thrusts.

In short, the leader never commits. He just bangs away.

The scary part?

Get this: A leader with Infinite Monkey affliction can often persist and even prevail.

Savvy ones refer to neat sounding investment terms like “portfolio effects” and “diversification.” These are worthy, useful terms in the real world of strategic management, to be sure. However, the infinite monkey leader takes them to the limit… Wasting time on things that should be stopped, never driving hard against things that should be over-invested, and ultimately missing the boat.

But, these leaders are out there, they are in senior positions, and in some cases they lead successful organizations.

It’s remarkable, but true.

In those cases, a few things are common. Most of the time, the strength of the organization overcomes the leader’s weakness. Some of the time, the leader has a strong “second” who corrals the mercurial or passive tendencies (yes, you read that right) of the infinite monkey leader.

In any case, there will be consequences. One only need look for them.

What are the consequences?

The consequences of infinite monkey leadership are substantial, but take time to manifest themselves, especially for the ones who find success through their organizations as noted above. They include

  • Frustration – particularly as every part of the organization realizes that any part of the organization might or might not be on the leader’s agenda–who can tell?
  • Wasted time and money – it goes without saying…keep banging away.
  • Lost opportunities – too often, the infinite monkey leader has a focus on meeting a budget versus building value; and that can lead to lost opportunities.
  • Lost people – particularly those who know better, so it’s a double whammy.

This is an article about opportunity costs and leaders who ignore them.

Opportunity costs are often very hard to prove in an organization. What if we hadn’t spent that extra year working on that project that everybody knew was a dud? What could we have done?

Tough to say.

Can this affliction be overcome?

I believe this affliction can be fixed…to a point.

In larger organizations, the fix comes from constraints and processes. Other people put constraints on the infinite monkey leader, and processes provide structure and required inputs for testing whether the options are real.

It’s bureaucracy, and it contributes to the longevity of the infinite monkey leadership style (it’s just a manifestation of a “strong organization” as I noted above), but it can work.

Over time the leader learns what constraint and conviction are, and starts to understand what truly constitutes a portfolio versus just a grab bag.

In smaller organizations, or organizational cultures where the top of the organization rules (and that doesn’t mean the CEO, it means the top of every function, work team, cell, and unit); leaders have to be good at asking a few questions in a structured…perhaps in a very structured way.

  • Do we know what we are doing?
  • Do we know why we are doing it?
  • Do we know the burden imposed in terms of time, money, and energy?
  • Are we spending our time, money, and energy on the right things?

As with most activities, sorting and scrutinizing works.

The real challenge for the infinite monkey leader is the last question…the “right things” question.

Usually, the infinite monkey leader can’t make that call.

That’s why he’s an infinite monkey leader!

He needs help. But, he has to admit that he doesn’t necessarily know what “right” is; and in some organizations that can be political suicide.

Perhaps he needs someone who can provide an interpretive framework for what “right” is. Perhaps he only needs to stop and think about what he believes.

It’s tough to tell.

Good, structured thinking and follow through is the requirement; because the leader lacks an intuitive feel for priorities and burden.

A parting thought…

I have framed this article around the concept of the leader being the monkey on typewriter.

For most of us, that’s a fun an engaging way of thinking about a significant leadership failure mode.

Sometimes we are the monkey leader, banging away on a keyboard, thinking we are making progress…

But, those of us who try to practice disciplined followership know the uglier side of this leadership affliction: Most of the time, the leader isn’t the one banging away at the keys…It’s his followers. He’s only ordering them to keep banging away.

Don’t be a monkey, in either case.

Know what you believe.

(And, yes, the chimp in the picture above is not a monkey…it’s an ape…But, still.)

Let’s Face It, I’m Smarter Than You

/1 Comment/in , , /by

thierry ehrmann

Some mindsets are toxic. If you propagate them, stop it. If your leader does it, weigh your options.

I write often on the light side of leadership. A few examples are here, here, and here. This one’s a bit dark. But, it’s real. Ask around.

“Let’s face it, I’m smarter than you.”

If any leader were to drop that phrase on you, you’d possibly recoil in horror and anger while looking for your hat and coat to depart. It is the sort of phrase that would be almost as hilarious to anyone hearing it uttered as it is spiteful and selfish in its utterance.

The issue is that a lot of leaders say this every day. They convey this and a whole host of other toxic thoughts through their actions. Sometimes, they don’t even know they do it.

The continuum of toxic leadership mindsets

I’ll list some of the host of toxic mindsets below (and I HOPE you will consider adding to them) because as a whole, they constitute quite possibly the single most distracting productivity sap of modern corporate life.

These mindsets are not individually toxic. Let’s be honest, all good leaders have these fleeting thoughts as a part of balancing the line between good, solid confidence and outright egotism. The issue is when these mindsets become the rule instead of the exception.

When they become endemic, they are destructive.

I’ve segmented them into six types, and given a few examples of the unspoken speech that comes with them. Ranging from mildly annoying (kinda jerky) to absolutely toxic (as in pure deal breakers–the kind of leader you walk away from at first possibility) the six types are:

Type 1: “My brain is bigger than yours.”

  • Let’s face it, I’m smarter than you
  • I could do this better than you.
  • I can interrupt you, but don’t you dare interrupt me.
  • My experience/knowledge/background is superior to yours.

Type 2: “I don’t want you to think.”

  • You will do what you are told.
  • This is not a team/democracy/collaboration.
  • That’s a stupid idea!
  • I’ve already given you the answer, don’t question it.

Type 3: “You don’t matter”

  • My freedom is more important than yours
  • My work is more important than you.
  • My family is more important than yours.
  • My stories are more interesting than yours.
  • I don’t believe in or sponsor people.

Type 4: “I don’t make mistakes.”

  • If it weren’t for you, we would have done better.
  • Because I have never failed, it must be you.
  • I have paid my dues and earned it (and you haven’t).
  • It was generous of me to do what I did for you.
  • I refuse to acknowledge that I might be wrong.

Type 5: “If it’s unethical, you did it.”

  • I’m happy for you to act unethically, as long as I don’t have to and can’t be blamed for it.
  • I would like for you to deceive other people and keep me safe.

Type 6: “I’m afraid.”

  • You do it.
  • You tell them (not me).
  • It’s not me, it’s you.

Notice how the progression goes from deep arrogance in Type 1 to deep insecurity in Type 6.

We all can deal with the jerkiness of ego from time to time. If we don’t, then we probably aren’t competing very hard. But, it gets excruciatingly hard to deal with an insecure or cowardly leader. That’s why type 6 is on the deal breaking end of the spectrum.

What to do…

The first point of this article is one of self reflection. We, especially those of us who lead others, have to ensure we’re not the ones representing these mindsets.

The second point is to provide some markers to look out for among the people you work for and with.

Generally, those markers are unspoken. But, if any of these mindsets ever turn into spoken word, then you’ve been given a gift–the gift of clarity. With your gift in hand, feel good about walking away.

When faced with a leader who possesses these sentiments at his or her heart; and who lacks the self awareness required to avoid expressing them; you really have two options:

1. Look past the leader to the other opportunities you will have in the organization. Many great people deal with ineffective or toxic leaders every day because they like their teams, like their organizations, and–most importantly–see the opportunity set that they have on the horizon past their current leader. In other words, they can look to the horizon and see past the stumbling block in their immediate path.

Or…

2. If you can’t see the opportunity for growth, and can get comfortable with the risk inherent to change…Go!!! Vote with your feet. Be confident that there are better leaders out there. Get away from them. Walk away, don’t look back, just leave.

A Parting Thought: Remember the Scorpion and the Frog

If you take pride in your ability to corral toxic leaders; or if you think that you are safe from a leader who professes the thoughts outlined above because you believe you have a special relationship with them…

or they sponsor you…

or you are somehow indispensable…

or they have told you that you are different…

…then I ask you this: Did the last few people this leader blamed for his or her own inadequacies think they were any less sponsored or safe?

Remember: In the fable of the scorpion and the frog…

…they both drown.

#Likeagirl, Evidence, and Leadership

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Always asks us what it means to do things like a girl, and in the process illustrates a fascinating leadership concept.

If you watched the NFL’s Super Bowl tonight, you may have caught a glimpse of a commercial advertisement that doubtless cost millions of dollars to produce and present during the time of the world’s most expensive ad buy.

The ad is by Always, the maker of feminine products and a member of Procter & Gamble’s stable of brands. I learned within the last few minutes that the video is not new; but I just saw it.

If you’ve seen it, forgive my late-to-the-game reaction and thoughts; but I hope you’ll read on.

I can’t do the commercial justice, so I’m just going to link it here and hope you’ll take a few minutes to watch it.

The operative phrase in this spot is

A girl’s confidence plummets during puberty.

It is a call to action to support girls’ confidence and fight the “like a girl” stereotype.

The ad challenges us to understand that girls, prior to 10 years of age, have no idea that to be told they throw, run, or fight “like a girl” is an insult of the most dangerous kind–a socially acceptable one.

No, I don’t fit the mold of someone who opines on commercials by makers of feminine products. Nor do I represent the most likely demographic to jot down a post related to important women’s issues.

But I have a young daughter.

And this spot got me thinking.

If girls the world over–like my daughter–can go from thinking that they run, throw, and fight strong at age 10 to partaking in the general ethos that their actions are not only inferior, but comedic by age 12…

…what is happening to people’s confidence in so many other arenas due to similar social pressures?

It’s probable that we chase a significant proportion of young women out of arenas they may excel within because they “don’t fit the mold.” This has been studied repeatedly.

It’s a real failure of leadership.

And that’s not just a failure when it comes to leading young women…It’s a failure when it comes to people of all types.

I’ve written plenty on the need for evidence-based leadership.

This one is no different.

Show me how you throw. Show me how fast you run. Show me how you lead. Show me your ideas. Don’t succumb to stereotypes and prejudice.

Speak up.

Show up.

How many professionals, men and women, live with the lack of confidence that comes from these types of dismissals and this type of derision?

As someone in the “degreed” class who has been around a few organizations over time, I’ve witnessed countless dismissals of highly valid points of view due to educational background, national background, or lack of facility with a second language. I’ve seen it because of the way someone looks or dresses. I’ve even seen it because a person grew up in the wrong corporate function or attended the wrong college.

And, sadly, yes, I’ve seen it because of gender.

Such prejudice shuts people up…quickly. It stifles sharing of talents and in its worst guise amputates aspirations that could benefit most any enterprise.

What I’m saying is that in the professional arena, #likeagirl could also be #likeahighschoolgrad or #likeamanufacturingmanager or #likeanonenglishspeaker or #liketheydidntattendharvard.

In other words, they are insults that really shouldn’t be–choices and mindsets that divide and dismiss vs. listen and consider.

Always, with a very interesting ad, is just saying “watch it, because its insulting to imply that girls can’t accomplish these things.”

I’m saying the same thing.

As leaders, we could learn a lot from this video.

Look for evidence.

8 Things Your Consultants Say About You

/0 Comments/in , /by

The presence of consultants in your organization is a powerful indicator of your strength or weakness as a leader.

It’s basically impossible to move through life without using a consultant. From the haircut you get to the type of shoes you buy to the grand strategy for your organization, chances are you have tapped knowledge outside your own head in order to inject perspective, organize choices and expedite success.

But, in the business world, the presence of consulting talent in an organization provides an interesting barometer on the organization itself.

The “right” consulting model

Transient talent is a useful thing for both efficiency and effectiveness. Even in the most autonomous leadership cultures, adopting temporary talent can be a make or break proposition.

Think about the merchant shipping industry. The captain of a ship is exactly that–the absolute authority at sea.

Yet, captains readily relinquish their authority to harbor pilots every day in every part of the world. The harbor pilot is a consultant of a specific kind: One who has

very specific knowledge useful in a very specific circumstance during the life of the ship. The harbor pilot is far more versed in the navigation of his specific harbor than any oceangoing captain could be.

His experience allows for safer navigation of the port regardless of conditions that might not show up on a chart or radar. And, while the captain maintains command of the ship, he or she smartly relinquishes control to the pilot as a matter of course (or, in many places, law).

Thus, the captain brings a pilot aboard to ensure effective navigation with superior knowledge and talent; but not to replace his own command or the need for talented crew members at all times. The pilot boards incoming ships as they approach the port and leaves outgoing ships as they leave.

He’s a consultant.

Such use of transient talent is the “right” model of management consulting: Specific talent applied judiciously and precisely.

But, you and I both know that isn’t always the reason or approach to retaining consultants.  The way consulting talent is engaged–and the objectives for engaging it–says a lot about the executive engaging the consultant.

The interpretation is made by the organization–and that matters.

So…

8 things your consultants say about you without using words…

First, The Good.  To your organization, effective use of outside talent signals some pretty cool things; such as:

  • You are seeking the right knowledge at the right time: Engaging consultants is sometimes an admission that you and your organization can’t possibly know it all. So, you hire consultants who bring sources of knowledge to renew your own.
  • Your recognize that time is of the essence: You know that without augmentation, your existing staff may not have the bandwidth or tools and approaches to managed a rapidly paced project. So, you bring on management talent in a bounded manner to get “over the hump.” There’s no time to waste.
  • You care about developing your organization: You believe that development matters. You recognize that your team and organization can benefit from seeing new ways of doing things. So, you provide outside support to them as a means of developing them along in their careers. They get to see by doing alongside those who have been there and done that.
  • You are good at managing SG&A expense: Just as it would be impractical for every oceangoing captain to learn the intricacies of every possible port he or she will visit, no organization needs to staff against every contingency. Hiring talented consultants during peak times or against peak needs shows that you value great talent, but also solid bottom line performance. You are willing to pay a premium in the moment; but are good at getting lean and mean without having to fire people.

The consultants in your midst may say these things about you; and I hope they do.

However, there’s just as much a chance that consultants represent some brokenness around you…

So.

Here’s the bad, along with a little more narrative on some ways to sniff it out.  

Done inartfully, engaging consultants can telegraph to your organization that:

  • You lack confidence: You lack confidence in your professional capability. You lack vision. The desire for “more study” and slow playing–a result of vacillating indecisiveness–is sometimes an inefficiency that consultants thrive in. Worse yet, your organization may get the sense that you require the ego-stroking presence of high profile consultants in order to make it through your day. Finally, there’s the potential signal that you lack confidence in existing staff. Consultants can feed off of a lack of confidence in very dangerous ways. If the last several consulting engagements you contracted basically confirmed what you already knew, then take a hint.  If your trusted consultant (or any corporate confidant, really) spends more time massaging you than working the problem, you have a further hint that your confidence is being played.
  • You lack action orientation: Bringing in a consulting team to analyze the un-analyzeable in the name of seeking cover with your senior management and board is only sometimes okay. If you are in a position to “bet the company” then taking a deep breath and seeking a second opinion is fine; but you’d better let the organization know you are choosing to over-study the situation; because risk averse navel gazing is contagious. How many times do you hire a specific consultant just because they are the one your boss or the board will listen to? To a degree that’s just good politics, but sometimes it’s politics spelled C.Y.A.
  • Your talent strategy is off: It goes without saying that if you continuously engage outsiders at an arms-length premium to do recurring, especially generalist work; then you are probably missing an opportunity to upgrade your own talent base and save money to boot. When outsiders get all the sweet gigs, your inside talent base gets grumpy. Keep that in mind next time you engage a consultant to do work that could be a stretch for your insiders. Also, watch out for instances where you constantly re-engage “retired” employees you haven’t been able to back-fill. It may be an indicator that your talent strategy is bumbling.
  • You have a bad place to work: This is the bottom of the barrel. You have the Las Vegas of workplaces. People may visit and try to get rich, but nobody really wants to live there because of its false front and seedy underside. How many times do you attempt to hire the consultant but get rebuffed? How many times have outsiders with a good taste of the inside of your organization voluntarily re-upped as a full time employee. Worse yet, how many of your consultants have recommended (non desperate) people to come work for you without collecting a search fee? If the answer to these questions is “few or none,” your consultants may be feeding off of an awful company environment. You might have an organization that is a “nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to work there.”

So, there you have it…8 things that consultants may be signaling to your organization.  The good is good. The bad is ugly.

I recommend the good.

A parting thought…

As someone who has scoped, negotiated, and managed many millions of dollars worth of consulting projects and engaged consultants and advisors for millions more, I clearly believe that management consultants can provide exemplary value as hired guns aimed at specific, impact-oriented targets.

It just requires a high professional standard on both sides of the engagement.

It’s important to know what your consultant may be saying about you, if only through the words of the observers in your organization.

Watch out for the bad stuff…

@GeoffTWilson

/0 Comments/in , /by

We bring light as leaders through deliberate and constant focus on doing so. I invite you to share examples below.

Here we sit in the middle of the holiday season.

I’m here–with the freedom of conscience, thought, and expression afforded some of us in this world–reflecting on the past year and its many lessons. As I do so, I am pondering what this season of giving means to all of us who count ourselves as leaders, particularly the subset of us who strive to be enlightened leaders.

To wit: I’ve been struck over the past year with the conviction that the word “enlightened” really is the key. Anyone can occupy a position of power. Some are there due to merit, some due to happenstance, and some simply through the laziness of those who place them there. Some–those who count position and power as the ultimate ends–cast a cloud of darkness on those they lead.

The gist is this: We can “be” in a leadership position without “being” a leader. The choices we make determine whether we fulfill the role.

Bringing enlightenment–whether it be in strategic, personal, financial, fiduciary, or operational matters–is the ineluctable, essential imperative in this age of reaction, speed, spin, and selfishness. Too many lives and livelihoods ride on the backs of leaders these days–in the old days it was the bureaucracy and the rules–for leaders not to put their focus on the highest and best aspirations.

But, if you are reading this, you know that platforms like LinkedIn posts, personal blogs, and other media are sometimes used to point out what ought not be done.

I’m not going there with this one. I’m going to abide by the old saying that goes:

It’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

And, so I thought I’d reflect for a minute, in the midst of Chanukkah and on the verge of Christmas, on what it means to “light a candle” as a leader. And, then, to ask you to share as well.

Both Chanukkah and Christmas celebrate the lighting of miraculous lights in their own way. Perhaps as leaders you, dear reader, and I might aspire to something short of that, but to something enduring nonetheless. So…

5 ways to light a candle as a leader

(Hundreds of others exist…Please share yours below)

1. Perform – Deliver the numbers, the project, the deal, the plan. Yes, setting a standard of performance is the first and foremost kindling of the light of leadership. Results, as they say, matter. Capability matters. Establishing a bar of performance…a standard or an expectation that others can see and understand; actually will set you apart as a leader in this day of spin and historical revision. Nobody really wants to follow a phony or a fraud.

2. Believe – Have confidence in those around you, and show it. At the root of inspirational leadership is faith the leader shows in those he or she leads. Stretch them. Challenge them. Coach them. But most of all, prove that you believe in them. Listening to them is a good start.

3. Build – Be the one who leaves something of value when you go. Focus not merely on the number of stones you lay this day, week, month, or year; but also on the ultimate edifice you are constructing. If you can’t envision the edifice, then neither can those you lead…So, stop. Even the most forthright stonemason wants to know what he’s building. Think about what you are building. This goes for the business or organization you are driving today: Earnings growth? Yes, but also longer term value! It also goes for the people you lead: Sure, they are in it for the money, but where are their careers going under your leadership? Unless your social contract is explicitly transactional (which is perfectly fine as long as it’s explicit and mutual)…Build!

4. Share – Give a piece of yourself to those you lead. The act of sharing doesn’t have to be intense or strenuous, but it ought to be sincere. Share how you’ve succeeded. Reflect on a failure or challenge. Note how you’ve been inspired by others. Share something of value to those around you that is about you but not shared for your benefit (that includes wallowing in the negative…rarely a good thing). 96% of people seek personal meaning in the relationships they have. Consider that.

5. Thank – Admit you can’t do it alone. Take the time to say thank you…yes, even for effort and not outcome. It’s true that people work for a paycheck; but none of us wants a team full of paycheck players…They rarely win.

I can think of so many others that have meant so much to me; but I’ll leave it at that. Now, it’s your turn…

I don’t always leave a call to action at the bottom of my posts. In this case, I’d very much like to hear from readers on how leaders have lit the way in readers’ professional or personal lives. If you feel so compelled, please share something ever so briefly in the comments section below.

Do it in the spirit of the season; and perhaps to enhance the endurance of enlightened leadership everywhere.

Please share…

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, Season’s Greetings, and God bless!

Geoff Wilson is a strategy executive focused on the articulation of practical strategic principles for leadership and performance. If you follow people on Twitter, you might consider following him: @GeoffTWilson

View this and other posts at the Wilson Growth Partners, LLC Blog.