Why Don't We Get What We Want?

It is now late November 2013 and two different national Opinion Polls released yesterday and today both show a similar story - the current Australian Government, elected only a month or so back, is losing the confidence of the Australian people. In fact, according to one Poll, the decline of the party in power (the Liberal-National Coalition) has been the fastest in Australian history.

To say that this decline is extremely surprising to many of us is to use strong understatement.

On 7 September 2013 Australians elected the Liberal National Coalition as Australia's Federal Government. The result was clear and unequivocal. In the House of Representatives the Coalition received an unassailable majority and in the Senate it was clear that the conservative vote (even if not for the Coalition per se) meant that the new Senate will be dominated by basically conservatives. Yet now, not 3 months later, the Polls say that, if an election had been held last week, the result may have been quite different - almost certainly the Coalition would still have won but its majority would have been significantly less.

As the late Professor Sumner Miller used to say, when speaking of science matters on Australian TV, "Why is this so?"

I suggest there are 2 reasons why this has occurred. I also suggest that failure to deal with these reasons could, potentially, lead to the previously unthinkable scenario that was suggested to me last week at a workshop I was conducting for senior business leaders. At that workshop a very senior leader with extremely strong Liberal Party connections and a person who is very much "in touch" with public opinion stated that we needed to face the possibility that the Abbott Government could be a "one-term" Government!

So let's look at the two reasons:

1. Getting rid of what you don't want is vastly different from getting what you do want.
2. The very things that have made you successful in the past are the same things that can stop you being successful in the future.

Getting rid of what you don't want is vastly different from getting what you do want.
During its period in power, the Labor Government under both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard had become increasingly dysfunctional. It had done some good things under both Prime Ministers but the factional in-fighting and the increasingly poisonous relationship between Kevin Rudd (and his supporters) and Julia Gillard (and her supporters) meant that there was increasing disenchantment with the Government and a reluctance to believe that it had any answers to the issues facing Australia. Accordingly, at the election on September 7, there was a strong consensus that "this lot has got to go". It was widely felt that anything would be better than what we had!

I think that what this first round of Polling is telling is that right now, based on what we have seen over the past couple of months, lots of people are saying "despite our earlier optimism, unfortunately right now we can't see that this current Government is the utopian answer for which we had been seeking."

The very things that have made you successful in the past are the same things that can stop you being successful in the future
Some 20 years ago I was at a conference in California where one of the key speakers was a successful businessman named Jim Belasco (author of the book "Teaching the Elephant to Dance"). Belsaco said that over his years in business one of the hardest lessons he had to learn was that those very behaviours that had made him successful in the past were the very behaviours that would stop him being successful in the future. The further he moved up the hierarchy, successfully encountering new challenges meant that he needed to use new behaviours.

There is no doubt that Tony Abbott, Australia's current Prime Minister, was one of the most effective Parliamentary Opposition Leaders in Australia's recent history - and possible the most effective. His pugnacious, take-no-prisoners, approach in which he largely succeeded in dictating the political agenda meant that he dominated the media and facilitated much of the negative perception with which the Labor Government came to be seen. As a Rhodes' Scholar, Tony Abbot was a Boxing Blue and I am sure that during this period he learned that there is a huge difference in the behaviour required of a challenger as opposed to that of a defending title holder. He needs to apply this knowledge now - both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard failed to appropriately change behaviours and I doubt that Tony Abbot wants to be in the same camp as them.

"So what," you may say. "This was the first set of Opinion Polls for the new Government and there is a long time before the next Federal election must be called." Very true and I, for one, am always sceptical of opinion polls because they can become self-fulfilling. I know about "lies, damned lies, and statistics!". But, in this case, it may be an early warning sign - something that says "here's something to be aware of but don't be too concerned at this stage".

In my latest book Delivering High Performance: The Third Generation Organisation (2013, Gower Publications, London) I make the point that there is plenty of evidence worldwide to support the view that the Chairman of any organisation sets the tone for the entire organisation and that, where inappropriate behaviour is found anywhere in the organisation, it is usually quite easy to show a direct linkage between the behaviour exhibited and the standards set and policed by the Chairman. Tony Abbott is, in effect, the Chairman of the organisation "Australia". Already since September 7 we have been regaled with possible abuses of the Parliamentary expenses system across both major parties and involving senior members of the Government (including Tony Abbott himself). Already we are seeing the same pugnacious, "I'm not going to listen to what the people say", approach from Ministers of the Crown as they showed when Opposition Spokespeople on various Ministries. This isn't going down well with lots of people and I think these first 2 Opinion Polls indicate this.

It will be interesting to see if Tony Abbott, an undoubtedly highly intelligent person, can make the necessary behavioural transitions from being a highly successful Leader of the Opposition to now become a highly successful Prime Minister. Kevin Rudd couldn't.

I'd love to know what you think. Please comment below.

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

The Real Trouble With Free Speech

In his excellent book, "Worse Than War" (2009, Public Affairs, New York), Daniel Jonah Goldhagen explores the issues of "genocide, elimination, and the on-going assault on humanity". At the end of Chapter 9 he makes the comment "actual minds create actual worlds". His point is that what we think about other people and what we believe should be "our" world eventually becomes the "actual world" for us. When an opportunity then arises where we can bring that world into being, we tend to grab it with both hands. If our thinking is around the exclusiveness of our family, our group, our race, etc then, when given the opportunity we will try to ensure everyone else acknowledges this and yields to our wishes. "We are in control". The result is often "worse than war".

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as the issue of free speech has been debated in the Australian media. In an earlier blog, talking about the incidence which started this latest discussion on free speech, I said:

"Before I proceed, let me make some things clear. First in relation to free speech. In my new book "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience" (2012, Gower Publications, UK), I make the following statement:

I have spent my life believing in the power of a democratic society where the rule of law ensures that people will not be imprisoned without trial; that habeas corpus is a vital component of a free society; that secret police and interrogation without legal representation is wrong and an abuse of power; that freedom of faith, speech and association are inalienable rights – even if I disagree totally with what you say, believe or with whom you associate, you have an absolute right to say what you want, follow the faith or non-faith of your choice, and associate with whoever you wish."

There are many people in every society who don't think critically about what they hear on the radio, see on TV or in the movies, or read in the newspaper. People who specialise in propaganda (from Goebbels down) have known and do know this. The result is that they are fully aware that if you say something often enough and authoritatively enough, eventually many people will believe it even if it is palpably untrue. For this reason every person and/or party pushing a particular agenda seeks to ensure that their message is propounded strongly and often. The role of "shock jocks" in the media is often critical in this.

Some would argue that this then becomes an abuse of "freedom of speech". I disagree. The real trouble with freedom of speech is that, all too often, the right to speak out is too seldom used by those of us who do apply our critical faculties to what we hear, what we see, and what we read. This failure by us to speak out ultimately runs the risk of letting "the inmates run the asylum". If that happens then, as Goldhagen makes very clear, the following words by Pastor Martin Niemoller (which originally applied to Nazi Germany) could have increasing relevance in today’s society no matter where that society may be:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

What sort of "actual world" do you want? If we are concerned about the messages promulgated by radio, TV, films and/or newspapers our response should not be to advocate some form of censorship. Rather our response should be to ensure that our voices are heard along with the others. But let's make sure we do this in an acceptable and respectful manner. A mark of true leadership is that we ensure all voices are heard - not just those who promote bigotry and discrimination.

What do you think?

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

PPM Starts at the Top

2012 marks my 50th year in some form of leadership position - school, military, voluntary organisations, business, etc. In that time I've worked for a lot of managers, followed quite a few leaders, and have experienced my own mistakes and successes as a leader. Hopefully I've learned something from them all.

One thing I know I've learned stands out from all the rest. That is:

PPM (Piss Poor Management) starts at the top.

Managers down the line reflect the management that they see as being successful for those at more senior positions. In other words, if a junior level manager sees that senior level managers get promotions and salary increases through bullying or a failure to confront issues or any other behaviour, there is a high probability that this will be reflected in that junior manager's behaviour. (Fortunately the same is also true for good management practices.)

In other words, managers at the top of an organisation set the culture - the behavioural norms - that operate within any organisation.

When I did my PhD research (many years ago now!) it became clear that people join an organisation because they believe that their personal values and those of the organisation are compatible. Most employee separations in the first year occur because either the employee or the employer realise that a mistake was made. For those that survive the first year, the values have either proved to be reasonably compatible or the employee has made changes to fit in with the organisation. By the time a person has been with an organisation for about 5 years there is no significantly discernible distinction between the two sets of values. In other words, whether it is a culture of good management / leadership practices or one of bad management / leadership practices, the employee has adopted the culture of the organisation.

Scary!

Question: As a leader, what sort of practices do you model to others? If you practice PPM, don't expect your followers to be any different.

Nobody has to be a PPM. Any failure to change is a matter of choice.

I've some more about this at http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/4-Signs-of-a-Successful-Leader.html and at http://dglong.com/become_a_more_successful_leader.htm

I'd love to know your thoughts on this. Please make your comments below.

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

Bullying - a clear indicator of PPM

The Macquarie Dictionary defines a bully as "someone who hurts, frightens, or orders about smaller or weaker people". It goes on to suggests synonyms that include "bulldoze, coerce, intimidate, threaten, tyrannise".

Leaders and good managers understand that bullying is oxymoronic. A leader and/or a good manager cannot be a bully and a bully cannot be a leader and/or a good manager. We need to remember this because every time we see a so-called leader indulging in coercion, intimidation. making threats etc that person has immediately forfeited his or her right to be called a leader. They may be in command or in charge, they may be #1 in their hierarchy or organisation or on the airwaves (all of which are perfectly legitimate roles) - but they are not a leader and they are not a "good manager".

Over recent blogs I have explored the issue of PPM (Piss Poor Management) and common to every example I have provided - and common to every example provided to me by other people - is the fact of one person using their position, title, money, power, physique, or some other part of their persona to coerce, intimidate, or threaten others. The result is that the other person felt a degree of insecurity, apprehension or fear in relation to their physical, emotional, psychological, or employment security. In other words, the person with the power has created an environment in which increased productivity, creativity, commitment, and motivation are highly unlikely to continue. People have been set up for failure rather than for success.

In my last blog I suggested the media should consider a "bullying index" that they put alongside all reports relating to politicians, captains of industry, talkback radio hosts, union officials, etc - in other words against every person seeking to exercise power and authority in every area of the community. The media often advocates naming and shaming for various other matters - why not for bullying?

If we're serious about eradicating bullying among young people then we've got to stop it in their role models!

Whoever you are; whatever your position in society; no matter what your wealth, status or anything else, you are a role model to someone. What sort of role model do you provide?

You don't have to be a bully! You can choose to be a leader.

What do you think? I'd love to know - please make your comments below.

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

The PPM issue!

Last week I wrote about my daughter's experience with PPM (Piss Poor Management) and I have now received numerous accounts from others about their experiences. These anecdotes include:

• A manager who refused to employ people who knew more than he did, or to promote people who challenged him
  
• A manager in a children's day care centre who, when asked for some guidance on doing a new task, ridiculed the a staff member involved in front of parent clients
• A manager in a major not-for-profit organisation who delayed investigation into an issue relating to remuneration because "your complaint makes me look bad!"
• A manager who was so concerned about her boss that, every time her boss was seen talking with a staff member, would find an excuse to get involved so as to ensure that she knew everything that was being said

What these illustrate is that PPM is not confined to the retail sector - it is alive and flourishing across the board.

Management education and training (whether from educational institutions or private training organisations) has been teaching good management practices for at least 40 years. Virtually everyone currently practicing PPM has almost certainly been exposed to good management practices in some way or another, yet PPM prevails. Why?

PPM in organisations is characterised by creating a situation in which employees feel their jobs are under threat - reach the performance targets set or be sacked/demoted/moved etc. - and such sanctions, in turn, could threaten my financial security and/or perceived social status. This threat of dismissal or other sanctions may be real or imagined. Its symptoms are people in supervisory/ management roles who refuse to question "the boss" or who will support "the boss" even when this means disillusionment and possible loss of good staff. My self interests and general concern for "me" takes precedence over everything else. These people can be described in the old saying: "they're not 'yes-men': they say 'no' when the boss does!"

I suspect that, deep down, PPM is caused by basic insecurity or fear.

Fear is one of the most basic and powerful factors in all animal life. It is multifaceted and encompasses physical and psychological/emotional aspects of life. It drives us to aggression, to frozen inaction, and to escapism through such avenues as physical removal from a situation, through to such behaviours as abuse of alcohol and drugs. It underlies all bullying and much of the antisocial behaviour we encounter. It underpinned the "cold war" - the West refused to accept that the East may not want world dominance (and vice versa); it underpinned the fiasco around the USA's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; and it underpins the current preoccupation with what Iran may or may not be doing in its (currently) totally legitimate enrichment of uranium. Fear is used by politicians and managers to drive people towards a solution that meets the ego needs of the powerful regardless of what is really good for the company or country or whatever.

I believe that, despite the best efforts and intentions of those propounding good management practices, PPM will continue to be prominent until we learn how to shift our brain's locus of control away from the "fear centre" and into the "courage centre". As I have said in earlier blogs, its the issue of "red zone" versus "blue zone" in terms of the way in which our brains work - but it starts in myself, the individual, rather than in someone else. (There are some pointers in how to make this shift at http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/7-Steps-To-Realising-Your-Potential.html)

The thing to remember is that, ultimately, no-one has to put up with PPM in any organisation. We may not be able to change the situation; we may not be able to change how others behave; but we can change our response. We can walk away - but, ideally, find your next job first!

What do you think? I'd love to hear your comments.

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

You've got to love those skinks!

The skink was back on Sunday.

Well, I'm not really sure if it was the same skink about which I wrote a week or so back, but there certainly was a skink back in the kitchen - and the cat was still around.

For those of you not familiar with Australian fauna, the common garden skink (Lampropholis guichenoti) is found virtually everywhere in South East Australia. It has a smooth dark greyish body with a dark stripe running along each side - a very beautiful creature that is totally harmless, good for the garden, and enjoys sunning itself on rocks and ledges. From tip of nose to end of tail the ones around here seem to be about 18 cm (about 7 inches) long.

But we seem to have a skink with a penchant for danger - or one that knows that there is a short cut between the front and back gardens if one goes through the house! The cat was sleeping near the door when the skink arrived on the porch, paused, looked at the cat, then scurried inside close to where I was reading a newspaper. There were a few moments of activity then, safely caught in a bag, the skink was removed and released into the front garden.

Now I know that skinks can't think rationally (and probably can't really think at all) but I had to wonder why a creature with no defence mechanisms other than flight or freeze would stray into the path of danger (the cat) and away from an environment in which it can find plenty of places to safely hide. And that got me thinking about the behaviour of people. How often do we act without thinking (virtually operating on 'auto pilot') and put ourselves and others in some form of danger?

We all see it every day. Someone puts an item on the stove (or a bench, or a table), close to the edge and with a handle sticking out in such a way that it could be easily bumped and dislodged; someone listens to music or talks on their phone whilst walking along a street totally oblivious to other people, traffic, or immoveable objects; people remove children and/or items from their car using the door that juts out into the traffic flow endangering both themselves and that which they are moving and passing traffic; people in shops block an entire aisle with their shopping basket or while chatting with a friend; and so on. There are myriad everyday examples, with which we are all aware, of unthinking risky behaviour. People operating on auto pilot with no manual override apparently present!

We all have 2 minds - a childlike mind that operates without thinking and an adult mind that is capable of rational thought, of planning, of "thinking outside the square", and generally enabling us to be creative, exciting people who are aware of others and our surroundings and who seek to operate safely and successfully without endangering ourselves or others. A childlike mind is totally acceptable in a child - in fact it is one of the endearing factors of children - but its not the best mind from which to operate when we're grown up.

You can shift your brain's control to the adult mind. Its not all that hard - all you've got to do is to access something that is already there; that you use frequently; and make it your default way of thinking and acting. There's some more information about how you can do this on http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/summary.php

Why not let me know what you think? You can place your comments below.

More about Doug Long on http://www.dglong.com

Improving Decision Making

Chris Stephenson, a highly successful and well respected CEO who is now a management consultant in Sydney, has recently completed a valuable study on decision making[1].

There is plenty of material available that shows the importance of making good strategic decisions and, in retrospect, it is always easy to nominate “good” or “bad” decisions. Of course, there are also plenty of models around that can work us through a process (usually quite time intensive) designed to ensure we make the “right” decision.

But most of us don’t have the time to work through some complicated decision-making model and, even if we did have the time, the evidence shows that there is still no guarantee that we will make a “good” decision every (or even most of) the time. In fact there is data that shows only about 15% of organisations have the ability to make and implement important decisions effectively.

Stephenson interviewed CEOs and Executives in Australia about their decision making processes. His interest was to find out how we can improve the quality of decision making – in other words, rather than considering decisions that had been made and then deciding were these decisions “good” or “bad”, he wanted to find out those things surrounding the final decision being made so that the probability of a “good” decision improved.

He found that the key factors that resulted in poor quality decisions were:

• No decision-making process – Decisions are made on a case by case basis often by a small sub-group or by the CEO alone mandating a direction without any discussion.
• Lack of transparency – Excluding stakeholders from decision-making, withholding information, side-bar discussions between the CEO and individuals outside of the TMT.
• Low tolerance for diversity and alternate views – A low appreciation of the value of diversity and experience.
• Disrespect – Treating those with different views as disloyal and not team contributors.
• Data – Ignoring data when it didn’t confirm favoured outcomes. Over relying on small data samples when they supported desired outcomes. Pretending everything is OK when it’s not.
• Dominant individuals – A CEO or others dominating the discussion and chiding anyone that offers alternative inputs.
• Self interest – Allowing self interest to be the basis of decision outcomes rather than organisational best interest.
• Emotional factors – Taking decisions on gut instinct without cross-checking against the data. Not appreciating the affect of personal biases on decisions.
• Narcissism – Decisions driven by individuals with an over developed self belief and inability to comprehend other people mattering or themselves being wrong.
• Ego – Decisions driven by one person’s agenda to further themselves.

All business decisions today are made in an environment of increasing complexity, information overload, reducing lead-times, personal motives, survival and self-serving instincts, and pressure associated with meeting market expectations. What Stephenson found out was that the quality of decisions depended a lot on:

• Knowing who is making the decision and their accountability for it
• Understanding the timeframe
• A robust process
• Transparency
• Inclusiveness
• Appreciating diversity
• A sense of order
• Accurate data
• Mutual respect
• Active debate on issues with everyone involved having a say

Where this second set of factors were clear throughout the organisation – in other words, this was the organisation’s culture - the quality of decision making improved significantly.

What decision making culture exists in your business? As Stephenson shows, its not hard to make it positive.

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

---

[1] Unpublished DBA thesis through Southern Cross University.

A Skink's View of Life!

We have skinks at our place. For the technically minded, they are Common Garden Skink (Lampropholis guichenoti), but we simply call them “skinks”.

We also have a cat.

The two tend to be mutually exclusive – so, as far as possible, we protect “the skink” from “the cat”.

The other day I was pottering in the kitchen when I saw a skink running across the floor. I also saw “the cat” sitting on the back porch – right in the skink’s path. I moved to catch the skink and then commenced a game of hide and seek that took me about 30 minutes to win. Fortunately “the cat” didn’t see “the skink”!

Eventually, securely apprehended, “the skink” was taken out another door and released into the safety of the garden.

Got me thinking.

My intentions towards “the skink” were entirely honourable – I wanted to save its life. The skink also wanted to save its life – survival is a strong instinct. We were in total accord – except the skink couldn’t get the message. It was totally unable to move its brain’s area of control out of “the red zone” – mainly because it has no “blue zone” – so it got increasingly traumatised and ran around oblivious to the real danger – “the cat”.

Fortunately there was a happy ending this time, but, as I say, it got me thinking.

How often are the threats from which we run not really threats at all?

Our “red zone” of brain control can’t tell what “threats” are real and what are not. When our brain is under the control of our red zone, anything different or that challenges our comfortable way of thinking and acting can be seen as a threat – even when, at the worst, it is benign or, at the best, it is very positive. Our red zone can prevent us from responding appropriately. We will respond to “the threat” by fight, flight, or freeze no matter what.

All too often our daily living reflects a skink’s view of life!

Of course this skink’s view of life in encouraged by irresponsible media who fail to call the government to account (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel-Palestine relationships are cases in point) and by those who have a vested interest in keeping us scared so they can exercise control and explain how “they” can keep us “safe” by taking actions “they” deem appropriate.

But we’re not skinks. People have a blue zone – and we can learn how to shift our brain’s area of control into the blue zone so that we can live differently.

I can help you make this shift.

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

What do you think? Please make your comments below.

Focus on the Horizon

Very recently I drove a rally car and I have the video to prove it!

For my birthday last year, the family gave me a voucher for a rally car driving experience - drive 2 different cars, each for 8 laps, then do a "hot lap" with an experienced (and in my case, luckily, a very successful) rally car driver. It was great fun. I thoroughly enjoyed it and I learned quite a bit about handling a car under vastly different conditions from what are experienced in day-to-day road driving.

Lesson 1: focus on the horizon
Many years ago my first driving experiences were on rough roads in country areas and farms. I thought I understood how to control a vehicle on greasy road surfaces. I learned that there is a big difference between driving a car very slowly on mud and gravel when compared with driving it fast. When driving fast I have learned to focus on the horizon, keep the wheels pointed in the direction I want to go, and to be careful not to try and correct too much for all the slipping and sliding that occurs. It is counter-intuitive.

Lesson 2: transfer the weight
The cars I drove were either front wheel or all-wheel drives (one of each). I learned that braking hard transferred the weight of the car from the front wheels to the rear wheels and that, if I needed to make a sudden or sharp turn, the best way of doing this was to brake hard, turn the wheels in the direction I wanted to go, then let the car do the work. By braking hard when I came to a turn, letting the car do the work, then accelerating out of the corner I could achieve my objectives while maintaining control.

Lesson 3: listen to the experts
Over the years I've driven a wide range of vehicles (including tractors and ambulances) at just as wide a variety of speeds under almost every possible road condition. I approached this adventure secure in the knowledge that I was a highly experienced driver with a very good record regarding accidents. At the safety briefing all of those doing the course were advised to listen to the instructor who would be sitting beside us on the track. I'm glad I heeded this. My instructor had won a number of international car rallies and could see things I couldn't in regard to my driving. Listening to him enabled me to start slowly then develop to quite fast circuits - and I only spun out twice! Listening to the expert saved me embarrassment and possible injury while simultaneously enabling me to have fun and achieve my objectives.

Seems to me that there's some pointers there for business as well as for life in general.

I'd love to know what you think. Let me know in the comments below.

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

2012 - How Will You be Remembered?

The other day I was chatting with some friends when one commented that "John Howard was the worst Prime Minister in Australia's history!" Now, as my friends know, I am pretty a-political - I dislike equally all politicians and political parties - but I was amazed. I was even more amazed to find myself defending Howard and commenting that a good case can be made for him being one of Australia's best Prime Ministers. When I pressed my friend to explain her comment, the emphasis was on Howard getting Australia involved in Iraq and Afghanistan - for both of which there is a very strong argument that Australia should never have got involved - she had forgotten his introduction of the GST (which, prior to the election, he had promised would never be introduced) which has helped transform the Australian economy. She had forgotten his strong leadership regarding gun control following the Port Arthur Massacre. And so on. All she remembered was the invasions - the negatives.

But this got me thinking. How do we remember people and how will we (and they) be remembered at the end of 2012?

My mind wandered to one of my more pleasant brushes with fame. Back in 1977 I was visiting Sydney and staying at the Boulevard Hotel. Together with a few friends, on the Saturday, I went to Doyles Restaurant in Rose Bay - then a justifiably famous and popular seafood restaurant. During the meal we became conscious that the folk music singer, Burl Ives, was also lunching there - in fact he was only 1 table away. Lunch went on and eventually the crowd thinned until there was only Burl Ives and his party as well as me and my friends present. One of Doyles staff came and spoke with the great man and, after a few minutes, left before returning with a guitar. For the next 30 or so minutes, Burl Ives entertained us with an impromptu concert. It was great. A little later, after returning to my hotel. I got in an elevator to again find myself face-to-face with Burl Ives. We chatted and I was impressed with his friendliness and obvious enjoyment from engaging with his public. I'll bet that Burl Ives never remembered meeting me, but 35 years later I still remember meeting him!

When I think back over recent years I am sure that people have mixed memories of me. I certainly don't think there would be agreement that accorded with how I would like to be remembered. And those memories significantly impact on how these people think of and interact with me today.

Its like our current crop of political leaders. My view of the Prime Minister, based on her performance in 2011, is that of an ambitious, possibly Machiavellian, person who is prepared to compromise at times in order to get legislation passed - 2011, despite there being a "hung" parliament, saw an almost record number of pieces of legislation passed. Based on her past performance, I suspect a lot more legislation will pass this year. My view of the Leader of the Opposition, is that of an equally ambitious, possibly Machiavellian, person who has a limited vocabulary - he knows how to say "No!" Based on his past performance I suspect we will see a continuation of this in 2012.

My perceptions may be quite wrong - I've never met either of them. They may both be very nice, approachable, highly principled people who are very positive and strong on engagement. Both may act quite differently this year. But my views are based on what I've seen and heard up to the end of 2011.

I don't make New Year's Resolutions, but thinking about all of this has given me a drive to be a bit different this year. At the end of 2012 I'd like to find that there was a pretty good agreement between the way I think of myself and the way others think of me. And that will mean I have to make some behaviour changes.

At the end of 2012, how will you be remembered? What are you going to do in order to bring a greater consistency between the way you see yourself and how others see you?

I'd love to know your views. Your comments are welcomed.

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

Boldly Forward into the Unknown

I'm looking out my home office window and there's my garden in all its glory - not!

Last winter I carefully prepared the soil and ensured plenty of nutrients were present. In late winter and spring I planted a wide variety of vegetables and seeds then carefully watered and fed them, but, apart from some lettuce and spinach, nothing's gone as planned. Sydney's weather has meant that things I couldn't control have had a huge negative impact.

For me, there are parallels with my 2011 experience.

This time last year everything seemed rosy. I reviewed 2010's results, revised my annual plans and was totally convinced that 2011 would be one of my best years ever. It wasn't! Circumstances beyond my control meant that, while certainly not (or even near) a disaster, 2011 could not really be described as "the best thing since sliced bread"!

How will my current gardening results affect me in 2012? Well, I'll harvest and use what I can then, in winter, I'll again prepare the soil for next year and start all over again. I know that there are always things like the weather that I can't control. But I also know that the only way I will have totally fresh vegetables is to grow my own and so I will continue in the knowledge that some years are always better than others.

I guess I'm a bit like Chauncey Gardener in "Being There". I understand and accept nature's cycles.

Chauncey, of course, was naive and his simplicity was manipulated and abused. But, we all know (even if sometimes we don't want to accept and face it) that there are powers greater than our own that impact on everything. All of us who teach and facilitate business planning at any level are at pains to point out the need to build in contingency aspects and to constantly review actual against plan so that remedial action can be taken.

The truth is that the only things we can really control are our attitudes towards the future and our response to what actually happens. Customers may or may not buy. Commodity prices may or may not rise or fall. Exchange rates may or may not remain stable. World economic woes may or may not continue (although personally I believe they are more likely to continue). Clients may or may not pay on time. Et cetera! We can plan. We can work to our plan. We can do everything right - and still the desired results might not eventuate. That's the reality.

As you move forward into the unknown - into 2012 - what's your attitude? Are you allowing any negatives from 2011 to dominate? Is there an anxiety because of the realisation that desired results depend as much on what others do as on what you do? There are things that you can do within your own mind to change that (you can move into the blue zone of courage rather than remain in the red zone of fear) and there are also plenty of people available to provide coaching, mentoring, and wisdom to help you on your journey.

Move boldly forward into the future. Your 2011 experience (whether positive or negative) is paralleled by that of countless others. You can make 2012 your best year ever - and if you need help, there are many sources from which you can get it.

I'd love to know what you think. Make a comment below.

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

Seasons and business

I work from home and as I look out of my office window I see new growth and blossoms on fruit trees that, only a short time ago, were dry sticks. The camellias are putting on a magnificent show; orange and cream clivia flowers are appearing from clumps of green leaves and my vegetable garden is alive with ingredients for summer salads. The strawberries are looking good, too. It’s a great time of year!

Yesterday I was talking with a small business owner who’s going through a hard time. Despite having a reputation for high quality work performed on time and within budget – a reputation earned over many years – sales are down and cash flow has been negative for some time. No matter what he tries in order to generate new business, nothing seems to work and although his core customers continue to be supportive, he is feeling tired and frustrated. “Its hard to maintain enthusiasm and motivation when you feel that nothing’s working,” he said to me.

Business can be like that – especially when you’re a one-person operation and have no internal support. Most small business owners can understand the feeling.

The small business owner with whom I was talking has been in business for 5 years. He’s very well qualified and has an impressive CV. His customers love him for his honesty, his integrity, and the quality of his work. But the nature of his expertise means that he is brought in to deal with specific problems which, once resolved, require no on-going constant relationship. So he needs referrals and new customers for growth and regular cash flow. But in today’s economic environment demand has dropped and he is struggling.

I suggested there was a message for him from the seasons.

1. Its not always summer!

Summer is the time for the beach; for barbeques with friends and family; for enjoying the warmth and sunshine.

For the last couple of years the man with whom I was speaking had been experiencing a “summer” in relation to his business. He had done the hard yards. He had marketed his expertise and had developed an impressive list of satisfied customers. Cash flow had been good and he and his family had enjoyed a high standard of living. Life was good.

But all summers end eventually and an important aspect of summer is to use this time to prepare for autumn and winter. If you’re a farmer, it’s the time for harvesting the grass that has flourished over spring and for making the hay and silage that will feed your animals over the winter months. In addition to everything else, it is a time to think of new ideas and to dream new dreams.

2. Winter can be a ‘downer’.

When its cold, wet, and miserable its easy to get despondent. The days can close in on you and sometimes there seems to be more darkness than light. This is a time when tempers can become frazzled and little irritants can escalate to become “bigger than Ben Hur”. But this is also the time when one needs to prepare the gardens for the coming seasons. It is a time for pruning the fruit trees; removing the remnants of past crops and getting the soil ready for new ones.

The man with whom I was speaking was in the depths of winter. We spoke of the need to re-examine his business model – to prune and prepare before moving forward. We examined possible changes.

3. There is always a spring.

Sometimes spring is late arriving – but eventually it always arrives. You plant the garden in late winter in the hope that about 2 weeks later new seedlings will appear, thinning can occur, and the summer crop is under way. But sometimes the spring rains and warmth are delayed; the seeds fail; and you have to sow again. Annoying but not disastrous.

You change your gardening practices to suit the conditions secure in the knowledge that eventually the conditions will be right for the seeds to germinate and grow. The important thing is to not lose faith that the right conditions will emerge.

We ended our conversation by considering the business conditions that are emerging now and what he will need to do in order to take advantage of these.

We’ve got another meeting organised for next week when we can plan the way forward for my frustrated small business owner. He’s starting to learn from the seasons.

The "Pleasant Bug"

What a month!

Moving house has to be one of the most traumatic experiences! I think the stress gauge suggests that its in the top 3 or 4 stressful things a person can do. I won't argue with that!

This is our 3rd week in the new home. The dogs and the cat have settled in and yesterday I finished putting in the vegetable garden so we are looking forward to fresh, home grown vegetables during late spring and summer. Of course getting things straightened out inside the house is quite different. There are boxes that are still not unpacked and things are being constantly reorganised until we get them "just right". And there's plenty more work to be done around the garden with pruning and tidying so it looks good for summer. But we'll get there.

Today the electrician is here replacing various faulty fittings and later this week the plumber and a roofer will arrive to fix up some faults that have become apparent. My experience of trades people is generally pretty positive. Most of the ones with whom have had to deal could be described as "the salt of the earth". Today's sparky is no exception. Cheerful, highly proficient, thorough and fast. Andrew Davies certainly knows that good customer service is vital.

And I had another example of good service on Sunday when I went to Bunnings in Thornleigh. I had taken my selections to the check out and the cashier and I chatted as he processed the sale. In response to something I said he suggested that one item might not be the best for what I needed to do. He suggested a slightly different, less expensive item so I made the change. He was right. The second item was perfect whereas I would have needed to slightly modify my original choice.

People like Andrew Davies and the Bunnings cashier have an impact far beyond the immediate interaction. At a time when little things can be blown out of proportion because of the general disruption experienced, they provide a calming and positive effect. Not only do they encourage me to use them again when I need an electrician or hardware, but they also infect others with the "pleasant bug". Thank you.

Are you infecting people with the "pleasant bug"?

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

A healthy organisation?

When I work with any organisation, I divide my attention into the 5 areas that determine health and sustainability and, among others, I ask the following questions:

1. Knowledge. How clear and focused are the vision, purpose, and objectives/goals of the organisation (both qualitative and quantitative) and how well are these known and understood throughout the organisation?

2. Strategy. In broad terms, how does the organisation intend to make its vision a reality – to attain its objectives/goals.

3. Non Human Resources. Does the organisation have the right resources to operate affectively and how does it ensure that the right resources are available at the right time and in the right place for the right people?

4. Structure. What is the decision making process? What is the lowest level in the organisation where decisions can be made and what are the repercussions of making the wrong decisions? What is the decision making environment within which the Executive Team operates?

5. Human Process. What are the labour turnover figures and how do these compare with your targeted turnover rate as set out in your business plan? What are you doing about any discrepancy? What are your recruitment processes and how could these be improved? How do you develop and maintain the requisite level of competence at all levels of personnel and how could this be done better? What process do you use to monitor customer/client satisfaction and how could this process be improved? How do you monitor the external environment that will or could impact on the organisation and what use do you make of this information? What is your relationship with the various trade unions / professional bodies that are represented in your organisation and how could these be improved? What process is used to get on-going, real time feedback from personnel on issues and concerns?

Providing cash flow is positive, these are the areas that will determine whether or not an organisation is healthy. Answering these questions will highlight possible “ouch” points that need to be addressed.

More information is 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

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

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.

Festina Lente !! (Urgent or Important?)

From my very long ago days of doing Latin at school, I seem to remember the phrase "festina lente" as meaning "hasten slowly" or "more hurry less speed". (I may, of course, be wrong in my recollection and, if I am, I'm sure someone will correct me!!)

I thought of this today because of a couple of events.

First I listened to an interview on Australia's ABC FM radio in which the person being interviewed was telling of his commitment to increasing literacy in third world countries. He explained that, now, they are opening a new library somewhere in a third world country every 4 or 5 hours. An incredible rate given that it is only about 10 years since he first became aware of the issue and committed himself to action. He said that he was an action-orientated person who looked for solutions rather than dwelling on problems. But he also pointed out that from first realising the size of the problem to actually getting things properly moving was about a year. Since then things have grown rapidly. Festina lente !

Second I was approached by someone who is trying to get a new business up and running. She is worried about the need for positive cash flow (aren't we all!!) and has been running around everywhere trying to get business. The result is that she has lost focus on what she really wants to achieve and runs the risk of failing because of confusion regarding priorities. We discussed how taking a step back and refocusing then moving forward in a planned approach would actually help her achieve desired results far more effectively than scattering her energies across a broad range of things.

Its the old question of deciding between "what is urgent" and "what is important". Too often we concentrate on "what is urgent" with the result that "what is important" never gets done and we wind up with time management problems, quality problems, staffing problems, and all the rest.

Part of creating an environment in which everyone can be successful - ie part of leadership - is recognising and applying the need for "festina lente" !

More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com/

Return on Investment

On February 12, 2010 a writer in The Sydney Morning Herald, Michael Pascoe made the following statement about the past CEO of Telstra in Australia. In an article entitled "Sol Trujillo was worse than he looked" Pascoe wrote: "When Trujillo and Co departed, it wasn't immediately possible to rank his performance. Parts were obviously bad, parts had promise. By the look of yesterday's interim results, the bits with promise were nowhere near enough to make up for the bad. More hat than cattle, as the saying goes, looking at where Telstra stands 5 years later."

The Sydney Morning Herald's "Good Weekend" of February 13 (p.14) had a similar theme. In an article entitled "Outrageous Fortune", Jane Cadzow points out that in 2003 Sydney University researcher John Shields concluded that the 20 best performing Australian companies paid their CEO's substantially less than did the 20 worst-performing companies. Shields is quoted as saying that "Against three criteria - return on equity, share price change, and change in earnings per share - statistical analysis shows that high executive pay levels actually coincide with a lower bottom line." Shields is quoted as saying that the 2003 research is still broadly true in 2010.

When I talk with Directors and senior executives I hear a lot about for need for measuring return on investment. It is one of the justifications I hear when companies are considering laying off staff or reducing their workforce by using part time workers. We do a lot to measure the return received for work done by lower level echelons on most organisations and the drive for increasing the use of technology is based on the premise that the company will obtain better returns.

Why don't we apply this to the top echelons? If it can be done for the lower levels (and it both can and is) then surely it can and should be applied at the top - including Director remuneration.

For almost 20 years I have been arguing that remuneration at the top should be genuinely performance based. Although the the myth is that this currently happens, the fact of huge bonuses and termination pays being made when the company is going backwards illustrates the discrepancy between myth and fact.

I suggest that the time is right for leaders - Company Directors, Legislators, Regulators, and Owners (shareholders) - to make a stand and insist on measuring return on investment at all levels and paying accordingly. By all means pay huge amounts (well into the $millions) if you believe that is what it takes to get the people you want at the top or anywhere else. I've no argument with that. But pay the bonus components on what happens to the organisation in the subsequent 5 years - especially in the event of a termination pay.

I'm not convinced that there is enough intestinal fortitude around for this to happen. Those executives who actually do provide long-term positive benefit to their companies - ie those who actually do provide a value-added component - have nothing to fear. I suspect its the others who will prevail.

I think that's the point Pascoe is making, too.

More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com

Change: How not to do it!!

They were all working as normal when the General Manager walked in. There was very little time for the usual banter before he said" "I'd like to discuss something with you." He went on to tell them of some significant reporting and operational changes that the company would like to make. He told them that he would welcome their suggestions prior to making any final decisions. Then, when he was asked when they could get back together to share their thoughts, he told them that the changes would be introduced within 2 weeks and that any suggestions would need to be made in this meeting and that the meeting would only be for the next 30 minutes. The meeting concluded with him thanking them for their suggestions and telling them that the change as originally shared with them would be operational as scheduled.

Hypothetical?

No. To my certain knowledge, it happened in a major company in this month of February 2010.

The team has been working on a major upgrade of the IT facilities. There are months of work left before the project is scheduled for completion. They are close knit and put in long hours without additional financial recognition because they are proud of their work and of their company.

Or, at least, they were.

The changes will mean that they lose their direct link to the relevant decision maker and that the new person to whom they will report has no background in IT or understanding of the programming issues involved. She will be unable to help them with technical expertise when they need suggestions or assistance and, with the company's rigid reporting lines, they will be discouraged from going directly to those who are able to provide help.

The entire team is now job hunting - and there is reason to believe that they will all leave the company within the next month or so. The cost to the company is going to be significant in money terms quite apart from the continued customer and supplier disquiet because of the current inadequate IT systems.

Over recent years I have observed two significant change programs that were badly designed and implemented. In both cases the changes were initiated after there were changes at Board level and, in both cases, the company is (or at least was) a well known and very successful one with very good EBIT and dividends. This new example appears to be doomed to the same result as the earlier one - good staff will leave; revenues will drop; EBIT will crash; dividends will become close to non existent; and everyone will be blamed except the change initiators.

These days virtually everyone accepts the reality of and the need for change. Most people do not oppose change "on principle". All that people ask is that there is authenticity and integrity from the change initiators. Don't be seen as manipulative by pretending to discuss change and seek input. Either share information and seek input at an early stage or else let people know that the decisions have been made and stop treating them like recalcitrant children.

There are plenty of resources available to help anyone and any organisation through the change process. No matter what the budget or organisational issue, someone can be found to assist you.

A little professional help at an early stage can save a fortune in later costs.

More information about Doug Long and how I can help you at http://www.dglong.com