Winning is everything?

I think it was the UCLA Bruins coach, Red Sanders who, around 1950, is reputed to have said "Winning isn't everything: its the only thing!"

It seems that this has been taken to heart by athletes over the years - of most recent note internationally we have it in the person of Lance Armstrong and, just the other week, in the widely publicised claims by the Australian Crimes Commission relating to a range of sports in Australia. If only "the end" is important than how you get there is irrelevant. Cheating, whether by the use of drugs or any in other form, is always a case of "the end justifies the means".

But its not just in sport that we find illegal and/or immoral behaviour. In Sydney right now the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is investigating how a then member of the New South Wales Parliament stood to gain up to $100 million in a matter of months from an investment of around $4million - it is claimed that a then Government Minister manipulated matters to ensure that his colleague benefitted. The hearing is being closely watched across the State with drama being played out every day and the final findings will be eagerly awaited whether or not corruption is held to have occurred.

There are questions in the business realm also. For years Australian consumers have been forced to pay significantly more for identical products when they are purchased in or from Australia rather than in the USA. In fact a recent enquiry showed that, for one product, it was cheaper to pay for a return airfare to the USA and purchase an item on-line there than it was to purchase the same item on-line in Australia. There is now a Federal Government enquiry being conducted into this possible price gouging and Microsoft and Apple (among others) have been summonsed to appear after they refused invitations to voluntarily appear. They are being asked to justify why identical products, both sourced from the same location and requiring no additional expenditure by the supplier, have such a huge price variance other than 'the end (profit) justifies the means'.

There is no doubt that winning is important. Equally there is no doubt that almost always (other than in some non-existent utopia) there are winners and losers in every arena of activity. This is normal and natural. However "how" you win should always be at least as important than the winning itself.

Recently I've been involved with a company that changed its "how" of doing business. Three years ago it was turning over around $55million annually for about $1million profit. Last year, without reducing staff levels, remuneration, or any employee benefits and while remaining a local manufacturing and distribution business they had revenues of around $70million for a profit of around $11million. Three years ago they saw themselves as losers. Today they know they are winners - all because they took a different approach to "how" and concentrated on a new form of leadership.

What happens in your organisation? Where is the emphasis - on the "what", the "how" or both?

Winning is important. But its not the only thing.

What do you think? Please add your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Committed to the job?

Last November Gower publishing commissioned me to write a follow up to "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control". Although Third Generation Leadership had only been released in September 2012, the interest in it was sufficient for them to want a "how to" book that showed Third Generation Leadership in action. For the last few months I've been totally engrossed in the new book because I had an end of January deadline if it was to be released this year. I've now sent it to them!

Third Generation Leadership is all about harnessing the energies of people so that they become engaged with their leaders and committed to helping their organisation achieve desired results. I chose to centre the new work around an Australian manufacturing operation of around 350 people (mixture of full-time, part-time, and casual) that, when I first became involved, had a turnover of around $55 million for earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) of $1 million and was considering moving its operations off shore in order to remain viable. Two years later, while remaining in Australia and without reducing staff levels or impacting negatively on any entitlements, the company had a turnover of around $70 million for an EBIT of around $11 million. The change had come about by harnessing everyone's energies and creating an environment where people wanted to help the company succeed - they had become engaged with their leaders (and each other) and committed to their company.

While I was working on the book it was sad to see a number of well-known Australian companies continuing a different approach - the traditional one of getting rid of staff in order to improve profitability. Most of the companies that I have observed taking this route are companies that have spoken frequently of the need for employee engagement and commitment. There's a bit of a disconnect here! It started me wondering about whether engagement and commitment really exists across organisations and, if it does, where in the organisation is one most likely to find engagement and commitment and, related to this, to what are most people really committed in the workplace. In answering these questions it seems to me that there are several myths that need to be addressed.

Myth 1 - High pay brings engagement and commitment:
There is a simplistic view that providing very high remuneration packages to CEO's and executives will bring about the level of engagement and commitment necessary to achieve high profitability - those receiving this money will demonstrate high productivity and ensure the success of the company. This is supported by a 2011 study from the University of South Carolina which found a positive correlation between executive remuneration and organisational performance as measured by return on equity. (http://astonjournals.com/manuscripts/Vol2011/BEJ-31_Vol2011.pdf ) However another study - done in Australia - considered return on equity, share price change, and change in earnings per share. This study concluded that there was no positive link between high executive pay and company performance - in fact they concluded that ultimately high executive pay levels actually coincides with a lower bottom line. (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/intranet/libpages.nsf/WebFiles/Hot+Topics+-+Shields+report+Executive+salaries/$FILE/Buck+stops+here.pdf)     

If very high levels of remuneration really do provide high levels of engagement, commitment, productivity and success then why do we find resistance to increasing the remuneration of those at the lower echelons of organisations? If it works for those at the top, why don't the same principles apply for everyone else? After all, without the people at the lower echelons there would be nothing for those at the top - and vice versa - there is a symbiotic relationship between organisational levels. The truth is that high remuneration eventually becomes an end in itself - a status symbol - and that indicates commitment to oneself - not to one's organisation and its long term viability.

Myth 2 -  "Strong" leadership will engender commitment:
There was a time when we didn't talk of 'leadership" as such. Until relatively recently we recognised command and control for what it was and accepted that one's place in the hierarchy determined what say one had in how an organisation was run - we called it "command" and/or "management" and it worked very well. Today we seem to speak almost exclusively of "leadership" yet, in many cases, we are not talking about inspiring people to move forward nor to creating an environment in which everyone can be successful - instead we are really still talking about command and control. Those who exercise this are regaled as "strong" leaders despite the fact that such an approach almost always degenerates into power and control games such as we see daily in politics, business, sport, religion, domestic relations, etc.

The truth is that "strong" leadership discourages true engagement and commitment. "Strong" leadership brings about a situation in which people obey or conform primarily out of fear. In such environments creativity and innovation drop because no-one wants to "rock the boat" - and certainly no-one is prepared to tell the boss that he or she is wrong - even when this is patently obvious.


The organisation that moved from $1million to $11million EBIT in 2 years used a different approach. There the Board and executive worked with their people and that transformed everything.

What has been your experience?

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com.

How you respond tells a lot

 Recently I made a serious mistake. A week or so back I read a magazine and thought the material in it was interesting and informative. It contained an article on leadership and I wondered whether the publishers were interested in extending this to a dialogue. So I submitted a brief (1100 words) article and asked whether they accepted unsolicited material. I have done this before and, in a number of instances, my material has been edited and printed – invariably with the result that more articles appeared from other people and some good dialogue took place.

Yesterday I heard back from the publishers who told me that their contributors all paid for the privilege of having their articles published. I was offered a deal of 3 articles providing I paid $900 (plus GST) for each one. Over the years I have submitted many articles to newspapers and magazines (and have been paid by the magazines every time a submission has been accepted) but this is the first time that any publication anywhere in the world has asked me to pay to have a submission published. I politely refused the offer, explaining: “It appears as though I totally misunderstood your magazine – I didn’t realise that its articles were actually advertising promotions rather than informative material to foster general understanding and debate”. I also pointed out that nowhere in their magazine could I find anything to indicate its articles were actually paid advertising.

Did I get a response? Sure did and it amazed me. Within minutes the publisher replied:

Dear Doug,

Thank you for your prompt response. I believe that some part of the society under the influence of the current government and their green comrades has stopped realising that we still live in a capitalistic society and all products in the market place must be paid for.

Thank you for your help and please let all your associates and business friends know that they shouldn’t expect something for nothing from others trying to increase their business profile and/or sell their valuable knowledge and products. I received 4 requests including your kind offer just today to provide my business services for free.

We also have a very informative and self-explanatory website where you and your associates can easily find all the information on how to advertise and contribute an article in ZZZ Magazine.

I wish you all the best in helping others and yourself release your and their potential in yourself, themselves and others.

Yours truly,

ZZZ

PS I suggest you to request help from comrades in ABC for some free media space.

I have talked a lot over the years about the areas of our brain that control how we think and act. Regular readers will be fully aware of the “red zone” – “blue zone” dichotomy that impacts and determines whether we are predisposed to a First Generation Leadership, a Second Generation Leadership, or a Third Generation Leadership approach. My new book, Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience (2012, Gower Publications, UK) sets this out in some detail.

Clearly the publisher of the magazine with which I was in contact operates from the “red zone”. The result is that an innocent attempt to develop a dialogue draws a response that tells us more about the responder than perhaps he realises.

One of the major problems I see in society today is that the “red zone” is the default for most of those in roles of leadership, authority, and influence. This is seen across the board whether we are talking politics, business, religion, or anything else. The result is a closing down of real dialogue and an attempt to “put down” or denigrate those who may have an opinion or stance that is different from one’s own. All too often it leads to extreme “right wing” and/or “left wing” positions that do little, if anything, to bring about a creative, innovative society.

Unconditional respect for all people regardless of any discriminating factor is the underlying concept of Third Generation Leadership and of the “blue zone” area of our brain’s locus of control. A key aspect of unconditional respect is that it never insults or denigrates the thinking of another. This publisher’s response adds reinforcement to the call for us to embrace a new way of interacting.

Do you ever ponder on what the responses you make or receive really tell the recipient? I do!

I’d love to know what you think.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Customer Service - still going!

If the press are to be believed, the current downturn in Australian retail sales is either because of the confusion being created about the new carbon tax or because of come other reason beyond the control of the retailers.

Huh?

The main reasons why people don't buy are pretty simple:

1. They don't know that the goods or services are available
2. The goods or services that are available are not those for which they are looking and/or need
3. The goods or services are not considered good value for money
4. The service (or lack thereof) provided by the seller is such that the customer considers it "just too hard" to buy

Yes, economic confidence affects the way people think and it certainly affects their buying patterns, but what this generally means is that people become more discriminating as to what they buy and from whom they buy it. And, yes, the current debate on the carbon tax (accompanied by much misinformation and deliberate attempts to mislead by appealing to fear) certainly has lowered consumer confidence because of the way in which the Australian economy is being talked down. But the reason why retailers are suffering lies primarily with the retailers themselves.

Ken Varga (http://kenvarga.com/) has some interesting things to say about this issue - perhaps even to some of the affected retailers.

I believe that a key problem is that so many of our major retailers have moved away from their core business. Where once stores like Myers and David Jones employed their own staff, trained those staff, and ensured that their staff knew about far more than just the small area in which they worked, today this is not the case. Our retailers seem to have moved to a situation in which various brands lease parts of the store and each is interested only in promoting their brands. In addition, because employment costs are seen as an expense rather than an investment, the stores have moved to a minimalist position on staffing levels and pay those they do employ the lowest possible wages they can get away with. The stores show little or no loyalty to staff (apart from the middle to senior managers and executives) so why should the staff show loyalty to them?

Good customer service requires engaged staff. To get staff committed to what they are doing, to their co-workers, and to their organisation, requires a vastly different type of leadership from that which is currently being provided. Unless an organisation is consciously set up to create an environment in which employees at all levels have a high probability of being successful, then customer service (and profitability) become a random end variable - which is, I guess, exactly where many organisations are today.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

What makes Third Generation Leadership “different”?

Third Generation Leadership:

• Explores “why” people take on leadership roles – their personal drivers
• Explores what people really want to achieve as leaders – their personal purpose
• Addresses two critical questions: How to get staff learning and therefore improving their performance? And How to get staff to adopt new listening and questioning behaviours (to increase collaboration and creativity)?
• Starts from the premise that, for this to happen, something completely new is required in the way we lead people and manage organisations
• Enables organisations to improve productivity and results through a different approach to engaging people
• Utilises the latest learning from the way our brains work – it enables shifting of our brain’s locus of control – not just attitudes and / or behaviour but the thinking process
• Is extremely practical and can be applied immediately in any leadership situation
• Utilises behaviours – and behaviours can be learned
• Harnesses the energies of everyone involved while fostering individual and team accountability and responsibility
• Develops a true “learning organisation”
• Leads directly to an effective, easy to apply, and thorough performance management system that conforms to the criteria stated by a Wharton Business School report (dated April 2011) for an overall performance management process -- one that focuses on goal setting, feedback, coaching and clear statements of the company's performance expectations - which is absolutely critical" and indeed, is found in the highest-performing companies

The Canadian singer-song writer, Leonard Cohen, has a song “Everybody Knows”. In this Cohen is pointing out everybody knows what is going on – especially when things aren’t working – but no-one is prepared to do anything about it. We continue doing the same things – possibly with some “tweaking” but basically still the same – and wonder why there is no real improvement.

The issues of leadership and employee engagement are no different.

There is always a lot of talk about the need for leadership and lots of discussion about employee engagement – but we continue to use models that were developed in the 20^th century and which have no comprehension of the complexity existing today and which take little or no account of the social media revolution and the impact this has had on access to information and accountability.

Everybody knows that the world is different today from what it was even 10 years ago – but we try to carry on as though the usual models can still work as well as they used to.

Third Generation Leadership does something about it.

First Generation Leadership is all about command and control – do what I say when I say it and in the manner I instruct you to use. Failure to obtain desired results or any disobedience is punished. This is the basis of most leadership approaches today. It has stood the test of time and is a wonderfully useful tool for those who have a need to be in total control and who see “being reasonable” as “do it my way.” We throw up our hands in horror when anyone suggests that this is used today but talk to almost anyone outside of middle and upper management and it is clear that they have very little doubt about the reality and commonality of this approach.

Second Generation Leadership is an evolution from this. It uses much the same approach but dresses things differently. Second Generation Leadership is all about conformance – fit in with the culture of the organisation and, at least on the surface, give allegiance to your boss and organisation even if such allegiance may be rewarded by redundancy or minimal remuneration increases when things get tough. Don’t rock the boat and certainly don’t seriously question what is happening. Of course, failure to conform has a high probability of seeing Second Generation Leadership supplanted by its underlying core – First Generation Leadership.

We know all this. As Cohen says, “everybody knows”. Yet we continue as though this is the way things have to be. The result is an increasingly disenfranchised work force, unacceptable levels of labour turnover, and organisational productivity and performance well below where it could be.

The system is broken and well past the stage where modifications and temporary fixes can be effective.

And that’s where Third Generation Leadership comes in!

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Something positive from the floods

While the devastation from the floods in Australia will take a long time to clear up, as usually happens in Australia, the fact of the army of volunteers descending to assist in the clean up of ravaged areas is very positive. It is a story that is almost always repeated after floods, fires, and cyclones.

A question that this raises is: "Why can't we harness people's energy and ability on an every day basis in all areas of life?"

The answer is that "we can" and that good leaders - Third Generation Leaders - do it every day.

So how is it done? Third Generation Leaders can harness everyone's energies and facilitate engagement with some simple actions. Here is a key selection:

1. Be honest and authentic in your communications. In other words, show unconditional respect to everyone.
   
2. Don't pretend to have all the answers. Make it clear that you will really listen to suggestions and that you will fully acknowledge contributions made.
   
3. Don't play power games - or any of the other games that are so often played in organisations - steer clear of hidden agendas.
   
4. Let everyone know the real situation - give them the facts - and encourage them to buy in emotionally to the reality being faced.
5. Let everyone know that their contribution will be and is appreciated.
6. Help everyone obtain a clear sense of a shared purpose and allow them to say what they can and cannot, are willing and are not willing, to do. Train, coach, support and counsel as required to help people develop the competence and the willingness to do everything that needs to be done.
   
7. Encourage shared accountability - accountability to one's peers, accountability to desired results, and accountability to one's own values and purpose.
   
8. Don't try to tightly control people - facilitate success by supporting not controlling. Do what you can to ensure that people have the resources they need, where they need them, and when they need them. Get out of the way and let them get on with it. Stop micro managing.
   
9. Provide feedback at every opportunity while seeking and being prepared to receive brutally honest feedback on your own behaviour as a leader.

Yes, there is more to it that just these 9 things - but implementing these will certainly start to get things moving in the right direction. Its not rocket science!

I'd love to know what you think about this. Please make your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

The Dawn of Something New

The start of any new year always brings with it a sense of a need for change – for something different. I guess that’s why so many of us make New Year’s resolutions – we want things to be different, in a positive way, from what has happened in the preceding year.

Two major events marked the start of 2011 for me.

On the evening of Sunday January 2 there was a major storm in Sydney, Australia. Our family was sitting around chatting when a bolt of lightning hit the house. Simultaneously there was a very loud “bang” a kaleidoscope of colours, and a smell of something having been burned. We were very lucky. Apart from the loss of some minor electronic equipment and the loss of internet access, there was no damage. It took us quite a while, however, before the adrenaline eased and we again felt normal.

The second event occurred a few days later. An overseas friend was scheduled to be married on January 5. His father had been ill for some time and on the morning of January 5 I received a message from him: “Dad … passed away a couple of hours ago. We are making arrangements for his funeral now.”

These two events highlighted for me the fact that, no matter what changes we may consider necessary and no matter what changes we might want to happen, sometimes change is brought about by circumstances totally beyond our control. The change caused by the lightning – the need for a new facsimile machine and the temporary loss of the internet connection – was minor, a very short-term irritant, and easily dealt with. The change my friend experienced – the loss of a much loved father and the need to postpone a wedding – was intensely personal and will have long-term impact on him and his immediate family.

The lightning strike has caused no change in my behaviour or that of my family. Something happened and, at the time, it appeared to be quite major. In fact it was trivial and was no impetus for change. The death of my friend’s father is different. No matter what, he and his family will experience long-term impact and their lives will never again be quite the same.

Over my years of facilitating change in individuals and organisations I have become increasingly aware of some truths relating to change:

1. It’s not whether or not something happens to us that is important, it’s how we react to this event that is important.

2. There is no absolute imperative to change. Unless and until an individual or an organisation “wants” to change, nothing will really happen. Of course there may be some cosmetic difference or there may be some immediate reaction to something that has happened, but overall the status quo will remain.

I was again reminded of these truths when I read the following: “Most leadership strategies are doomed to failure from the outset. Leaders instigating changes are often like gardeners standing over their plants and imploring them: ‘Grow! Try harder! You can do it!’ No gardener tries to convince a plant to ‘want’ to grow: if the seed does not have the potential to grow, there’s nothing anyone can do to make a difference.” Peter Senge, The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organisations, 1999, Broadway Business, New York.

January 2011 is the start of something new. Change is in the air. Perhaps we need to think a little about what makes us contemplate change as well as our role in facilitating any change that is required.

I’d love to know what you think about this. Please make your comments below.

More about me at http://www.dglong.com

Is Leadership dead?

In 1943 Nietzsche rocked the Christian and theological establishments with his assertion that "God is dead". A few years later (1952) JB Phillips continued this "rocking" in his book "Your God is Too Small". Once the shock and horror from the establishment had abated, these works (and others like the writings of Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Dietrich Bonheoffer, Paul Tillich etc) lead to many questioning their faith and, for some it lead to a new and deeper understanding of what they believe and why. [More recently, of course, the shock was continued by people such as John Robinson and John Spong]

Is “leadership” dead? Just as Nietzsche, Barth, Bultmann, Bonheoffer, Tillich, Robinson, Spong and others forced the Christian and theological establishments to re-examine their beliefs and concepts, has the time come when we need to seriously reconsider our leadship beliefs and concepts?

No matter what any person’s personal views relating to Julian Assange, the current furore around Wikileaks provides a focus for this question.

When I talk with people at any level of virtually any organisation I invariably hear that the problem they face is “leadership”. (A few years ago it was “communication”.) When I ask for clarification I get a shopping list of issues and concerns such that it would wear out a series of magic wands if they were all to be addressed.

It seems to me that "leadership" now seems to be a catch-all term (a bit like "communication"). That being the case, has the time now come when we should be considering whether the term "leadership" has lost its impact and whether we need to radically rethink the whole concept by moving out of all the traditional concepts like "servant leadership", "situational leadership", “contingency leadership”, “leadership habits” etc that are based on attitudes and behaviours?

In “Third Generation Leadership: how to develop commitment and accountability in the 21^st century” I suggest that the 1980’s brought about a seismic shift in the way leadership operates. I say in that book: “Gen Y finds rigid reporting structures and narrow sources of information to be a foreign concept. Their whole life has been lived in a world of personal computers, mobile phones, the internet, social networking, and the like. They have learned that by using the internet and the search engine of their choice they can find out almost anything about anyone at any time – and some of what they find out will even be accurate! Gen Y has an expectation that information will be readily available and that they will be involved in determining the accuracy and utility of such information.”

I wrote that long before Wikileaks was forefront of international consciousness but recent events demonstrate how accurate I was. “Leadership” as it largely exists today pertains to power and authority. In such an approach the ownership and control of information and knowledge is a very effective power base that can be used for good or evil but, almost always, to further the ambitions and desires of the leadership elite. This is as true in families as it is in organisations and nations. Most of the reaction against Julian Assange and Wikileaks relates not so much to what is being released but the very fact of this power base now being eroded.

If this forces us to reconsider the whole concept of “leadership” perhaps its not totally a bad thing.

I'd love to know what you think. Please make your comments below.

More information about me at

http://www.dglong.com

and at

http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

A Battle for the Mind

“If you believe you can,

or

if you believe you can’t …

Either way you are right!”

I came across this quotation recently and thought it warranted further consideration.

It is, of course, very true.

Almost every person is born with virtually unlimited potential in terms of their ability to develop. Not everyone can be (or wants to be) an elite athlete or a Nobel Prize winner, but almost anyone can mature to be the person that he or she wants to be. The problem is that, in many cases, this maturing is negatively impacted by our self-talk. And much self talk arises out of feedback we experience.

Unfortunately many of us have learned disappointment and failure. Growing up our parents, teachers, and other important influences told us “you can’t do that” – and too often punished us when we tried! At work we were told “it’s not your role to think. Just do as I tell you!” And so our attempts to be creative or to innovate were crushed and we learned not to try. Even when we knew processes and results could be improved, we learned to say nothing and to “fit in” if we wanted to get on or even just wanted to remain employed.

While it is true that, ultimately, each of us is responsible for the choices and decisions we make and it is equally true that we each have a significant impact on whether or not we achieve whatever it is we consider “success”, it is also true that the type of leadership we have received and the type of leadership we provide has a very real impact – either positively or negatively.

First Generation Leadership and Second Generation Leadership were pretty comfortable with followers experiencing learned helplessness. Where the emphasis was on compliance or conformance it was disconcerting and a threat to have followers who were thinking for themselves – after all, they might challenge the status quo and that could affect me.

Third Generation Leadership operates in a different mind space.

A Third Generation Leader wants people to think and to question. A Third Generation Leader knows that peak performance of an individual, a unit, or an organisation is only possible when everyone is fully engaged with their tasks and those around them. A Third Generation Leader knows that he or she doesn’t have all the answers – and, in fact, may not have many answers at all. But a Third Generation Leader knows that time and again the answers to problems and issues encountered are to be found in the collective wisdom and thinking of everyone involved. In order to harness this collective wisdom, a Third Generation Leader knows that it is essential to create an environment in which the battle for the mind is won by “I believe I can”.

And that requires a different sort of feedback and lots of encouragement.

Please let me know what you think of this. Make your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com.

More information about Third Generation Leadership at http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

How to achieve peak performance

There are 5 critical steps in obtaining peak performance:

1. Don’t expect respect.

2. Don’t think you’ve got the answer

3. Don’t pretend

4. Get out of the way

5. Say “thank you”

Don’t expect respect

One of the earliest lessons I received from my first boss was: “work with your people: don’t expect them to work for you.” What this means is that you cannot expect to be respected and to achieve results simply because you're "the boss". Respect is something you earn and until you have earned the respect of your people there is little or no probability that your unit will achieve peak performance as frequently as may desired.

You don’t have to be liked to be respected and there’s a huge difference between “liking” and “respecting”. You need to be respected.”

The steps to earning this respect are:

Don’t think you’ve got the answer

The first step in obtaining respect is to understand the difference between things that are negotiable and things that are not. When it comes to safety issues like the use of equipment and working conditions, the rules and regulations pertaining to these are designed to minimise the probability of injury or accident to others. Here there is no room for discussion or error.

But other matters are open to discussion. The objectives and strategy might be given from the top and the tactics might come from your immediate boss but the implementation of these in the most effective way usually has reasonable degrees of freedom at an operational level. Draw on the knowledge and experience of your people. In my experience, once people realise that you are genuinely asking for their input, they freely give it. The results then become theirs - not yours alone.

Don’t pretend

The need for integrity and authenticity should always be apparent. Most people in Australia have a very well developed “bullshit detection meter”. They can quickly distinguish between an academic or theoretical solution to a problem and a solution that is based on experience. Learn to make clear the difference between what you have been taught in your education or training and your experience. Then open the issue up for input from them as to what is the optimal way forward. The result should be a blend of knowledge and experience that results in everyone learning from each other and a deepening of trust and respect that will ensure that, when required, things will be done without question and with absolute commitment to the goals, the unit, and each individual. You might be “the boss” but without their commitment you can achieve almost nothing.

Get out of the way

Central to this concept of trust is learning not to micro manage. Your role is to ensure everyone has all of the necessary knowledge and skill to do what is required and to develop the level of commitment that will ensure you achieve what is necessary no matter what the personal cost. You need to be a close-knit unit where if someone sees something needing urgent attention he or she has the power and authority to take action without waiting for you to approve it. This means that, at times, you could be a follower who respects and responds to the knowledge and experience of someone technically junior to you. You can't do the work of your people. You can only do your work and your people need to trust that you will do it. You have to trust them to do their work and together you have to achieve results.

Say thank you

Always acknowledge the contribution of others. It is vital that those who make the contributions get the acknowledgment and reward. Learn to never take credit for the input of others and to ensure that the team’s effort is always recognised.

One thing I know for sure: these 5 things apply everywhere. They are critical to good leadership and they provide the base for Third Generation Leadership.

I'd love to know what you think about this. Please provide your comments below.

More information about me at http://www.dglong.com

What followers need

The research that lead to the concept of Third Generation Leadership showed that there are 4 key things that followers need if they are to provide peak performance - in other words, to do the things that their leaders need them to do in obtaining desired results. These are:

1. The follower needs to feel absolutely safe both physically and emotionally. This means that there can be no bullying, harassment, or discrimination just as much as it means that the highest standards of occupational health and safety standards should apply. When a person feels threatened in any way their attention is directed to avoiding, eliminating, or minimising the effect of the threat and so they are unable to give other activities the engagement required and performance suffers. Any form of threat will reduce long term overall performance even if, in the short term, it achieves results.
   
2. The follower needs to feel respected by his or her leader. Where the follower does not feel respected, this lack of respect is reciprocated and the follower is not committed to giving his or her best to the task at hand - in the worst case scenarios the follower will actively work to denigrate or embarrass the leader. While most leaders are perfectly happy to give conditional respect - in other words, 'do what I want and I will respect you' - the evidence is that only unconditional respect can totally remove all feelings of threat.
   
3. The follower needs to feel listened to by his or her leader. This is clearly related to the concept of unconditional respect. Virtually every consultant with whom I've spoken, as well as from my own experience, knows that people "down the food chain" generally know both what are the issues in any organisation and they can generally tell you pretty sensible ways of addressing these issues. When a leader acts as though he or she has all the answers they invariably limit the ability of people to perform at their best.
   
4. The follower needs to feel believed in by his or her leader. Its the old concept of self fulfilling prophecy. People perform in accordance with the belief shown in them - and this belief shows itself in actions and attitudes rather than in words.

Third Generation Leadership isn't rocket science. Third Generation Leadership is learning how to engage followers with each other as well as with the things that need to be done.

More information available at http://www.dglong.com and at http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

Please let me know what you think about this. Post your comments below.

There's no leadership to be seen yet

I had hoped that, by now, commonsense might prevail and that we might have seen some leadership from both sides of Australian Federal politics. Silly of me I know! It's one of the problems with being an optimist!

 

While I fully understand that some people in politics see it as a game of win-lose power play, there actually is a serious side to all the fun - and I don't mean the huge superannuation payouts and high levels of influence that tend to come after one retires from the political fray - there really is a responsibility to try and create an environment in which succeeding generations can live and prosper.

 

This message seems lost to both parties at the moment.

 

Like many others, I am tired of the game playing. Recently I heard one senior Coalition frontbencher comment that the members of the Liberal and Country parties expected and wanted the Coalition to try and destroy the Government. In the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday September 27, another Coalition frontbencher was reported as laughing when reminded of comments made when both parties were negotiating to become the minority government. An additional comment seemed to indicate that, in this person's mind, subterfuge and dishonesty is ok if it gains the end you desire.

 

Of course, more recently we have had the on-going unedifying fracas between John Howard and Peter Costello - neither of whom come out of it very well.

 

We appear to have degenerated into a country run by "little" people - people who are small in their minds, who have lost sight of the visions that gave us the Snowy Hydro Scheme, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Opera House, and the tremendous leaps in infrastructure that occurred under governments of all persuasions many years ago. If John Howard could be nicknamed "Little Johnny", then a similar sobriquet could also be applied to "Little Julia" and "Little Tony".

We need leaders with vision - leaders who place their own ambition in a position secondary to the needs of the country. As in the business world where time and again we see long term viability subordinated to short term results, in the political arena we are seeing the desire to score points and obtain power trumping over approaches that will take us into the distant future. We need leaders who develop a commonality of purpose among all groups - a desire to ensure a better world for our grandchildren's grandchildren - and who engage us all in the process.

 

We need Third Generation Leaders for this Third Generation Leadershipo environment. I've had enough of First and Second Generation Leaders in all areas of life.

 

To learn more about Third Generation Leadership go to http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

 

I'd love to know your thoughts. Please post your comments below.

 

More information about me at http://www.dglong.com

Its all about ambiguity!

The current federal political situation in Australia is symptomatic of the problems with First Generation Leadership and Second Generation Leadership. Both of these depend on hierarchy and control. They both make it clear as to where the "real" power lies and who is in charge. They are both totally inadequate for situations where there is a significant amount of complexity and ambiguity.

Of course our media are inextricably linked into this model, too. The impact of this is that on TV, radio, and in the print media we are confronted by calls for "certainty" and an end to what is seen as an impasse. First Generation Leadership (compliance) and Second Generation Leadership (conformance) seek to bring things back to levels of simplicity that can be handled by people who lack the requisite ability to deal with the reality of ambiguity and complexity.

The truth is that the people of Australia have made it clear that they don't really think either major party is up to the task of governing. They don't really trust either party - and with good reason. And the media "shock jocks" especially are affronted by this.

Our two party political system has lied us into wars of choice that have lead to the deaths of 21 soldiers and countless others wounded or emotionally affected. Our two party political system has seen the main contestants vie with each other as to who can be tougher on refugees and the disadvantaged. Our two main political parties wasted their campaigns by rubbishing their opponents and failed to give us any reason to vote for them. Our two main political parties are both subject to the whims and fancies of unelected power brokers with vested and undeclared interests that, in reality, have little or nothing to do with what is best for Australia overall.

Now these parties have to negotiate with people they have tried to marginalise and/or ignore for years - people who once were members of their parties but who rejected them. The scarcely hidden anger and frustration from the establishment is great.

Personally I don't think any political party is a good one - in fact I think political parties indicate a decline in democracy. Equally I think there is a danger in a small number of independents being able to ultimately decide what is done.

We need a new approach to leadership - one that is able to understand and to deal effectively with increasing amounts of ambiguity and complexity. We need to make the shift to Third Generation Leadership.

Please let me know what you think about this. You can post your comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

The Australian Elections - failures in leadership

What an election campaign that was! The two major parties proved very adept at pointing out the faults of their opponents. A lack-lustre campaign by people who seem to have little or no understanding of what leadership is all about. No wonder we're stuck with a hung parliament!

There have been 2 generations of leadership in the past. First Generation Leadership was all about obedience. Second Generation Leadership was all about conformance. You don't need vision and inspiration for these - all you need is a desire to obtain power or to remain in power.

Third Generation Leadership is about engaging people and enabling them to achieve great things. Neither the Liberal-National Coalition nor the Labor Party offered this. (And neither did the others to any extent.)

What a travesty. No matter who wins we'll wind up with mediocrity dragging us further into mediocrity. We've got Second Generation Leaders trying to use First Generation Leadership approaches in a Third Generation Leadership world. In my 34 years in Australia I have never before experienced such a rubbish campaign or seen such mediocrity in both major parties.

Australia deserves better than this.

Please let me know what you think about this posting. Place you comments below.

More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com/

Improved Profits

"How can Third Generation Leadership increase my organisation's profitability?" That was a question posed to me recently. The answer is simple.

Trust the people you work with (not just the managers) and, working with them in a very open session at which everything is "on the table", work through the following process:

1. Make a list of all the things impact on your organisation's ability to operate profitably.
2. Sort the list into two groups - those things within your organisation and those things external to your organisation
3. Sort the "internal" list into the following categories: knowledge, strategy, non-human resources, structure, human process
4. Very honestly and as impartially as possible, assess each item in each category of this list as to whether it actively enhances profitability, impedes profitability (usually by causing a problem or blockage that affects some other item from functioning effectively), or operates in such a way as to prevent profitability
5. Determine how to rid your organisation of those things that prevent profitability and clear the impediments
6. Determine how those items enhancing profitability can be further supported
7. Sort the "external" list into the following categories: those you can influence, those you cannot influence
8. Develop a very clear plan for positively influencing each item you can influence and develop an approach for dealing with those items you cannot influence
9. Empower everyone to make the new plan work

A First Generation Leader or a Second Generation Leader will try to control this discussion and will see as a threat any suggestions which question the leader's thought process and preferred approach. Such leaders will make it clear that some items are not open for consideration. This is a red zone approach.

A Third Generation Leader will operate from his or her brain's blue zone of control. This will allow full engagement with everyone involved and enable new and creative solutions and approaches to be developed. By then trusting people to actually implement what they have worked on developing, their commitment and competence will be harnessed towards achieving what needs to be done.

I'd love to know what you think of this. Please post a comment below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com/

Third Generation Leadership = Engagement

It is interesting to note that various articles in the mass media have picked up on the issue of relationships and how they affect engagement. The most recent trigger for this has been the change of Prime Minister in Australia.

In Australia, Prime Ministers are not elected by the people. Political parties determine their leaders and, following national elections, a particular political party (or coalition of parties) is elected to govern and the leader of that party then becomes Prime Minister. As has been graphically illustrated in the Kevin Rudd situation, a failure to engage both the general populace and your party colleagues, can lead to a rapid demise.

I note that apparently some of our business leaders (particularly in the retail arena) are using various forms of subterfuge in order to catch "slackers" at work. It seems that they feel their sales figures would be improved if people worked harder and so they want to find out who is not working as hard as perhaps they could. Clearly there is an associated implication that any "slackers" so discovered will have committed a "career limiting" activity!

I suggest that a better approach might be to improve the quality of leadership.

Most people want to do a good job. That which stops them tends to be problems in the quality of leadership or in some systems issue within the organisation. Those familiar with the concepts of Total Quality and the work of Edwards Deming will understand this.

If an organisation is not meeting the performance required, the first place to look is at the leadership. If the leader is failing to engage those with whom he or she is working, performance becomes a random variable!

I'd like to know what you think about this. Please post comments below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Third Generation Leadership engages people

It doesn't really matter what I might think of Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard or any other politician. What does matter is what may be learned from the absolutely unbelievable last few days in Australian politics.

The dominant leadership model today in politics as in most other areas of life is either First Generation Leadership in which obedience is demanded or Second Generation Leadership in which conformance is rewarded and non conformance is punished. Both of these are leadership approaches in which the emphasis is on hierarchy and control. These are the approaches which lead to "strong" leadership which sets goals and then brooks no denial or excuse in the attainment of these goals.

Unfortunately for the advocates of these approaches, increasing numbers of people today are refusing to accept that these are the best, or even the only, way to lead.

Last evening I built a list of the Prime Ministers in Australia since 1976 (when arrived here). Without exception they have been people who maintained very tight control over their parties and over the public servants who answered to them. Like them or loathe them, each of them have achieved much and each of them has fallen short in one or another area. In every case, eventually people rebelled against their controls and an increasing number of "leaks" made their way to the public arena with consequent embarrassment to the leader and/or his party.

Third Generation Leadership takes a totally different approach. Third Generation Leadership doesn't demand compliance or conformance. Third Generation Leadership is based on the concept of engaging with people so that they want to follow. The first step in bringing this about lies in the leader earning the respect of those he or she wants to lead.

From where sit, it seems that this is 180 degrees from the approach generally seen. My observations indicate that our "leaders" seem to expect respect to be automatic given their role.

My observations also indicate that this approach is failing.

Its about time we got leaders in every area of life who concentrated on engaging with people in such a way that people want to follow. And that will require a huge change in the attitudes and behaviour of virtually all those who claim to lead.

I'd love to know what you think of this. Please post a comment below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Conditional Respect is Red Zone, Stupid

Well, what a week or two!

Its only a short time since those seeking to break the blockade of Gaza received far more publicity and sympathy than could have been imagined by the stupid (and probably criminal) actions of Israeli forces boarding a ship in international waters and killing at least 9 of those people who, despite what some may say, sought quite legally to defend themselves against this attack.

Its just 10 days since a footballer, Timana Tahu, was prepared to step away from a career high point - representing his state in the Australian Rugby League (RFL) State of Origin series - in order to draw attention to blatantly racist statements by one of RFL's previous "greats". [Despite this ARL experience, in the past 48 hours, we have had two one-time "greats" in the Australian Football League (AFL) again make overtly racist comments.]

That which is common to all of these is the issue of respect.

Clearly the assistant coach in the RFL and the two "greats" from the AFL do not have unconditional respect for all players. Equally clearly the Israeli government does not have unconditional respect for people who fail to comply with what Israel demands. And it is this conditional respect shown sby ome in the RFL and the AFL and by Israel that has caused them problems.

The rights and wrongs of Timana Tahu's action and of the Palestinian blockade will be debated by many and each side is fully entitled to its own opinion. What cannot be denied is that Tahu's reputation has been enhanced while that of the RFL, the AFL, and of Israel has been damaged.

There is no doubt that the actions by those seeking to break the blockade of Gaza were acting provocatively. There is no doubt that the actions of the RFL assistant coach and those of the AFL "greats" were stupid and illegal.

Unfortunately provocation and stupidity are occurrences with which most of us have to deal on a daily basis. For those who operate out of the red zone of conditional respect (see http://www.thesuccesszone.com) this is not really an issue. They perceive such action as some sort of threat (which may or may not be real) and act accordingly - generally they attack by word or action with the hope that such actions will either stop the situation deteriorating or deter further provocative actions. Unfortunately the long term effects are often far from what is desired - the almost universal condemnation by the international community of Israel's action is a case in point.

And that is where Timana Tahu's behaviour stands out.

Tahu could have reacted from the red zone. He could have had a blazing row and/or have taken legal action against his coach. Instead he chose to quietly withdraw, consider his actions, then act in a way that has ensured he will be considered a hero by many because the issue of racism in sport has received attention is a way that should ensure all codes finally take stringent action to stamp out this scourge. This was blue zone behaviour. This was behaviour that showed ability to deal with ambiguity and complexity in a positive manner.

Third Generation Leadership - that leadership that is now so desperately needed throughout the world is leadership that is possible only when our brains have their locus of control firmly in the blue zone. We could go a long way to resolving most of the provocations, threats, and stupid actions in the personal, national, and international arenas if we learned how to manage down our red zones and manage up our blue zones. And this can be learned.

Please let me know what you think of this posting. You can make comments below.

Further information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Reaching Your Potential

We hear a lot today about the need for children and young people to reach their potential. In many places such as Australia any terms which may appear negative are prohibited in our preschools and schools. A person is not allowed to "fail" or "be naughty" - rather the emphasis is on providing feedback in positive terms so that growth will be encouraged. Singling out inappropriate behaviour and using methods such as "the naughty chair" or "time out rooms" are now not allowed in preschool and early school education. The intention is that the child will at all times be treated with respect and that the child's self esteem will be bolstered rather than harmed.

The intention is admirable. For too long we have "put down" people (including children) in the home, at school, in the work place, and in society at large. Those who haven't conformed to what was wanted by the parent, teacher, boss, or other authority figure have been subjected to sarcasm, insults, ridicule, and other elements of institutionalised bullying. The result has been some people with low self esteem who see themselves unable to achieve anything and therefore run the risk of drifting into what has been called "the detritus of society".

Recently in Sydney we had a conference on "Happiness". The emphasis seemed to be on encouraging positive emotions at all times. One speaker, the social researcher Hugh McKay, bucked the trend and made the point that to be fully human and to fully reach our potentials, we need to experience the full gamut of emotions - there is a sense in which we only really understand "happy" when we also know "sad".

We need to concentrate on the positive. No argument with that. But we also need to call inappropriate behaviour for what it is and ensure people (including children) understand both why it is inappropriate and what the appropriate behaviour ought to be. Sometimes this means we need to be very direct and to include some form of penalty that is clearly recognised as such.

This is a key component of Third Generation Leadership. Third Generation Leadership makes a clear distinction between the person (who is always acceptable) and their behaviour (which may not be acceptable). It doesn't 'gild the lily' - it calls behaviour for what it is and deals with that which is unacceptable in a way that doesn't diminish the other person's self esteem but, rather, is designed to help them reach their full potential.

Third Generation Leadership behaviours can be learned. Information about a workshop on this is available from http://bit.ly/b3fhou

Please let me know what you think about this. You can make a comment below.

More information about Doug Long at http://www,dglong.com

Its still a "SNAFU"

On Sunday April 11, the TV station SBS showed an interview with Ken Feinberg of Washington DC in the USA. Feinberg has been appointed to enforce a law passed by the US Congress to curb the excesses of 7 US Corporations bailed out during the global financial crisis. In this interview Feinberg says:

"I have discovered on this job the tremendous gap in perception between the way Wall Street thinks and the way Main Street thinks in America. There is real, justifiable anger and frustration over these excessive Wall Street bonuses, guaranteed salaries, guaranteed commissions - regardless of performance - it is these principles, or these characteristics of Wall Street, that we are trying to change."

As has been said by many people: the only thing we have leaned from history is that we have never learned from history.

Some people in Australia today speak and act as though there never was a global financial crisis. Its as though they live in a fool's paradise in which, because Australia never suffered as badly as every other western economy, there was overreaction by those in authority. When we see the way in which housing prices are again soaring and realise that, again, many people are seeking 100% (or very close to that) finance for their home because they don't want to miss out on this property boom, we can understand the caution and apprehension of Treasury and The Reserve Bank.

There have been figures released recently that indicate the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" in Australia is widening. God forbid that it should ever reach the levels that exists in the USA and many other countries - although I do see here an increasing incidence of people begging.

The system is broke. Traditional approaches are not going to fix it.

We need re-creation. We need Third Generation Leadership.

More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com

Please let me know what you think of this posting. You can provide feedback by clicking the link below.