It's a "trust thing"!

In all my years of being either a leader and/or a consultant (now a total of well over 45 years) there is one factor that I have found to be consistent if an organisation is to be successful in both the short term and the long term. There needs to be a high level of internal trust at and across all levels and areas of the organisation while simultaneously there needs to a high level of trust between the organisation and its customers and potential customers.  In other words, ultimately success is based on trust.

And that is one of the prime reasons why I am worried about the current Australian Federal Government.

On September 7, 2013 the Australian people threw out the incumbent Labor Government primarily because it had lost their trust. A key factor in them losing much of this trust was the behaviour of Tony Abbott. As Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott ensured that any failing of the government was highlighted and that any discrepancy between what had been promised and what was done was well and truly advertised. He was, as I have said before, certainly the most effective Leader of the Opposition in recent memory and probably among the best Leaders of the Opposition that Australia has ever had.

However, from published opinion polls as well as from discussions with a wide variety of people it is clear that our current Federal Government is rapidly losing the trust of the Australian people. Everyone with whom I speak, no matter what their political leanings may be, tells me that this losing of trust is because of the behaviour of Tony Abbott. A previously highly successful Leader of the Opposition is currently widely seen as a mediocre Prime Minister at best. Under his reign, the Liberal-National Coalition seems to lurch from one self-inflicted crisis to another. The examples I am quoted include:

• The apparent rorting of parliamentary expenses by politicians in both sides of Parliament including Tony Abbott himself
• The intransigence of rhetoric against the Indonesians when it emerged that the previous government had tapped the phones of the President of Indonesia, his wife, and his closest confidants - President Obama had given a case study in how to defuse such a situation yet, probably for ideological reasons, this example was totally ignored
• The buying in to a dispute between China and Japan regarding airspace over islands whose ownership is disputed between the two countries and which has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia
• The fake military secrecy over asylum seeker boats arriving into Australian waters and the attempted politicising of an Army General in an attempt to ensure the Australian people are kept in the dark and fed bovine excrement
• The absolute fiasco over the reform of education funding with a series of insults to the Australian people over what was said and what was believed to have been said followed by a backflip worthy of a series of 10's at the Olympics' high diving competition
• The use of the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to seize evidence and to prevent a key witness from traveling in order to try and impact on a case (currently before the International Court in The Hague) that claims Australia acted immorally (and probably illegally) when negotiating oil and gas rights in the Timor Sea during 2004 because it bugged the Cabinet Room in East Timor and the information thus obtained was used for commercial purposes rather than for matters of Australia's national security.
• The public disclosures from a senior member of Tony Abbott's own Coalition Government that the Prime Minister's office is obsessive about controlling information and micro managing its own people and activities - the very factor (obsessive control) that was a direct cause of the demise of previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

And, given that its not yet December 7, all this within 3 months of being elected!

There is good news and bad news in relation to all of this. The bad news is that trust - an essential ingredient of success - is being lost and goodwill squandered by what appears to be ineptitude from Tony Abbott and his Ministers. The good news is that there are almost 3 years to go before a new Federal election must be called and so Tony Abbott and his government have time to turn the situation around.

I have said before that, when there is inappropriate behaviour evident at any level of an organisation, the root cause of this is found in what the Chairman does and/or doesn't do. The "buck stops" with the chairman. Tony Abbott is, in effect, the Chairman of the organisation "Australia". We need to see some proper leadership from him - and right now that's another missing ingredient.

For those who want to ponder a little more widely, there are some messages here for those running commercial organisations, too.

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

PPM and customer service

Last week I had an interesting interaction with Virgin Australia. I wanted to make significant changes to a booking and I understood that there would be a fee involved. To check on the process I phoned Virgin and received clear instructions on how it could be done on line and what the fee would be. I then went on line to make the changes but, no matter what I tried, something wouldn't work. I again phoned Virgin, spoke to a different person, and was then told that the changes could only be made over the phone and that, because I was doing it by phone, there would be further charges! Even though Virgin Australia's policies may have no such intention, the person with whom I spoke left me with the impression that some form of price gouging may be involved. When I asked to speak to a supervisor or manager I was told that this wasn't possible and that, even if I did speak with one, I would be given the same message!! So much for Virgin Australia Service!

Two phone calls. Two different "service" people. Two totally different messages. I find it very easy to forget the first, helpful person and very easy to remember the second, very unhelpful and uncooperative person. Unfortunately for Virgin, as is usually the case in customer service interactions, it is the negative experience which tends to dominate.

I have written quite a few blogs on customer service (they're all available below). It is a sad fact that today, with organisations' emphasis on short term to medium term results and the use of outsourced and casual staff, cultures of relatively short term expediency seem to be replacing service and commitment. As I have said before about PPM (Piss Poor Management), it starts at the top by actions of commission and/or omission. In the case of my recent experience with Virgin Australia I suspect the "omission" aspect applies as contradictory messages (both direct and implied) were given.

Today's business environment is increasingly competitive and customers are increasingly price conscious. Things like air travel that once were "special" are now a commodity. Those supplying commodities need to offer something special to set themselves apart and to encourage customer/client loyalty - and "loyalty programs" don't fit this bill. Good management and good leadership recognises this and works constantly to ensure this "something special" is always on show and applied.

"We the people" are happy to respond positively when we feel that service providers really are providing service. Don't we?

What do you think? Please make your comments below.

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

Is that all there is?

Last week the Reserve Bank of Australia decided that there would be no change in the official interest rates but on Friday one of Australia's "Big Four", very profitable commercial banks decided that it would raise its interest rates anyway - they would hate to see any reduction in their "bottom line" because that could impact not only their international credit rating but, dare one say it, also possibly the remuneration of its senior executives. I suspect other banks will raise their rates this week!

Also during last week there were reports of a rise in the number of bankruptcies in parts of Sydney as well as reports of an increase in the number of mortgage holders who have negative equity in their homes - and many of these are in the more prestigious areas.

The fact is that, in Australia, the gulf between the rich and the poor is getting wider. We are developing at least two classes in society and, as attested by a wide range of social service organisations, many people are experiencing frustration, anger, and helplessness as they try to even survive in what is often an uncaring and vicious economic environment.

Back in 1969, Peggy Lee asked the question "Is That All There Is?" in a song which questioned what we call "success" and whether there was more to life than just the here and now. Recently we celebrated Easter - a time on the Christian calendar that asks much the same question.

We seem to be inexorably caught up in the myth that success is all about power, what you have and your place on the social status ladder. We perpetuate the myth that we live in an economy rather than a society. And we wonder why illegal activity seems rampant; why gambling, substance abuse (including alcohol and nicotine), relationship breakdown and all the other indicators of problems in society show no sign of reducing. We wonder why helplessness so often drifts to hopelessness, to depression, to despair and worse.

Many years ago, a concentration camp survivor, Victor Frankl, explained the way in which he and others in concentration camps dealt with the question of what life was really all about. Was life just a brief spasm with no ultimate purpose? Was life really worth living? Victor Frankl, having worked through these issues while an inmate of a concentration camp, concluded that the meaning of life is found in every moment of living. He concluded that life never ceases to have meaning, even in suffering and death.

As I work with individuals and organisations to help them unlock their potential I find that one critical thing is simply showing that I care - I care about what happens to each person and I care about what happens to each organisation. I show that I care by the questions I ask and by the way in which I listen. I can't solve their problems - either personal or organisational - but by moving things away from "simply an economy" to a "sense of society" it becomes possible for resolutions to be found and for a new future to emerge.

People and organisations in Australia today are hurting. Some of the hurt is self-inflicted because of past choices, other of the hurt is inflicted by uncaring philosophies, systems and myths. Where there is hurt there is also a need for care. There is meaning in life.

How do you show others that you care? Do you continue caring even when what you offer appears to be rejected?

You can make your comments below. I'd love to read them.

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

Still more about PPM!

The examples of PPM (Piss Poor Management) continue to come in - and some demonstrate either conscious or unconscious illegal and/or immoral behaviour.

• A Sydney prestige car dealership that refuses to pay an apprentice mechanic (automotive technician) for overtime worked - and threatens disciplinary action if the apprentice complains outside the company. Then, after a complaint is made and a warning is given, still persists with the same illegal behaviour!
  
• A private sector social service organisation that is found to have underpaid an employee then, when the employee persists with the claim, corrects this situation but also introduces a new policy designed to prohibit other employees from making similar claims
• A sales and service organisation where top management confuses employee professionalism with employee commitment - management expects staff to work long hours at low pay - then wonders why they have a high staff turnover when "there's just so much work for everyone"
• A restaurant where, on an evening when they are seriously short staffed, the manager refuses to assist staff in end-of-night cleaning - instead relaxing with an after-work drink and giving instructions

Seems like I've opened a hornets' nest with this subject!

In Australia we have legislation that ought to minimise the incidence of PPM - Occupational Health and Safety laws, Fair Work Australia laws, and the like - yet I hear of new examples every day.

There is something seriously wrong with workplaces and with society in general when PPM is so prevalent and so seldom challenged. I know that Maggie Thatcher, one time Prime Minister of the UK, famously said that "we live in an economy, not a society" (or words to that effect) but PPM doesn't even make real economic sense. There is plenty of hard evidence that all organisations achieve higher productivity with highly competent, fully committed employees who are engaged with their work, with each other, and with their organisation. And there is plenty of evidence also to show that higher productivity produces better results.

We shouldn't have to put up with PPM and we don't have to put up with PPM! Some clues about this are at http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/9-Steps-to-Improve-Performance.html and http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/7-Steps-To-Realising-Your-Potential.html

Share your stories about PPM with the rest of us. Make your comments below.

More information 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

Poor Management = Disengaged Staff = Lower Profits

I think it was the 60's folk group, Peter Paul & Mary who sang "When will they ever learn?"

I couldn't help but think of this over the weekend.

I have 2 daughters who are still studying and, like most of their peers, they work part time to generate income as they complete their degrees. One works in a locally owned fashion store and the other in a well known jewellery chain with high quality merchandise but owned by overseas interests. Both enjoy their work - they love the interaction with people and each of their employers recognises them as people who make their targets.

Last Thursday the daughter who works in jewellery mentioned that, on Friday, the regional manager would be visiting the store where she works. She said that her manager appeared a bit concerned because the shop's figures were 8% down on target - a situation that their research showed was somewhat better than most other retailers in their shopping centre and a lot better than the situation with the other members of the same chain in nearby shopping centres.

On Friday evening she came home furious. We learned that the regional manager had shown absolutely no understanding, had not been prepared to listen, and had given all 11 staff members a formal warning of dismissal - this despite the fact both my daughter and her manager were ahead of budget on their individual figures. On Saturday my daughter learned that she was not the only one now looking for another job.

Now I know that retail is a hard business at the best of times and that, right now in Australia, it is especially difficult. But surely the last thing you want to do is to have your good staff looking for other jobs!

The truth is that good people don't work for bad bosses! Once good employees find out that their management is poor to bad, they start looking elsewhere - and, because they're good, its not too hard for them to find alternative employment even when the job market is tough.

Retail trade is very dependent on floor traffic. That is why so many retailers go into large shopping centres where the multiplicity and variety of shops encourages a wide range of people to browse even if they have nothing specific to buy. If floor traffic is down there is very little, if anything, that a small individual shop can do to generate more shoppers. If this low floor traffic is coupled with a reduced spending pattern (such as Australia is now seeing) then meeting targets becomes even more difficult. The evidence of this is seen in the closure of so many retail outlets across the country over the last year or so.

In difficult times organisations need highly committed people who are fully engaged with their employer and their work associates. These fully engaged people will function as effective teams and will search for creative ways of meeting targets. They will engage with potential customers knowing that satisfied customers spend a lot more money than dissatisfied ones. Good management recognises this and seeks to enhance commitment. Poor management destroys commitment by making threats.

My suspicion is that somewhere in an office well away from Australia, is a management team that has looked at the jewellery chain's Australian figures and has put a lot of pressure on the local management to improve results. The local CEO has passed this pressure down and it has reached regional manager level. The regional manager, feeling threatened, has hit out at the managers of individual stores, etc. Its a classic example of PPM ("piss poor management").

Of course, this isn't only found in retail and its not only found in overseas owned operations.

There is significant research showing that the most critical thing in achieving desired results is that people feel physically, emotionally and psychologically safe. Immediately a person is threatened with dismissal this safety factor is triggered. At that time the person becomes more concerned for their own welfare than they do for their employer. A descending spiral commences which results in everyone losing. I can see this starting to emerge with the jewellery chain in question.

All of the data shows that most people want to do a good day's work and achieve results. Good managers understand this so they set clear performance targets in both qualitative and quantitative terms, then through effective feedback and an appropriate balance of control and empowerment, they create an environment in which people are fully engaged and in which they can achieve the desired results. It a pity the senior management where my daughter works doesn't understand this.

I believe its well past time to get rid of PPM practices.

I'd love to hear what you think. Please provide me with some feedback.

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

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

Engagement brings service brings profit

Some years ago I was staying at the Sheraton Towers in Singapore. One morning I was meandering through the hotel lobby and obviously appeared a little lost. A person cleaning the floor greeted me warmly, asked if there was anything I needed and, on being told I was simply going out for a walk, offered guidance as to the nearest train station and the shortest route to Orchard Road. Having been to Singapore many times and being very familiar with the city, I didn't really need his help but, without disclosing this to him, I thanked him for his interest and went on my way. That one experience did more to make me a "Sheraton fan" than did anything else in the hotel.

Back in 1990 I was in England when I got a phone call saying my father was in hospital and I should return to NZ as quickly as possible in order to see him before he died. My flight itinerary was with Finnair and I immediately contacted them to see if, under the circumstances, I could change my flights to another airline as Finnair had no appropriate scheduled flights to Bangkok - the transfer point. I was told "no". I phoned Qantas, explained the situation, and was told to get myself to Heathrow Airport, identify myself to the staff there, and that they would guarantee to get me on the first flight home. They did. I have never since flown Finnair (and have no intention to do so) and I became a Qantas fan.

Now I do not know what training they give cleaners at the Sheraton or to call centre staff at Qantas, but I do know that these two people gave me service that was exemplary and which put their organisations in a very positive light. I have used these experiences to recommend the Sheraton Towers ever since and, until the tragic demise of their service over recent years, I was a fervent advocate of Qantas

My point is simple. Two small actions by people very low in their organisation's hierarchies meant I changed brand allegiance as well as recommending to others that they change their brand allegiance too. This isn't unusual. Market research has for years made it clear that both good and bad service get talked about and shared. Good service can bring about increased market share while bad service can bring about decreased market share. Increased market share can bring about increased revenues and profits.

We all know we are living in a tough economic environment. We all hear organisations bemoaning the fact that business success is getting harder. But instead of increasing service to customers and clients we find reductions in front line service people and an increasing (and to many of us) infuriating reliance on automated responses and machines that are totally unable to provide the flexibility and commonsense that is usually needed. Machines and automation are great for totally standard issues but abysmal at anything requiring thought.

If organisations today seriously want to improve their revenues and their profits they need to improve their service. This is especially the case with retail and "service" organisations. Provide the leadership that creates an environment where you can be successful.

What do you think?

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

Leadership: what a pity there's so little of it!

The other day I was asked for my views about political, business, and religious leadership both worldwide and in Australia. I replied that it was hard to find any - there is plenty of power and authority; there is plenty of command and control; there is plenty of talk - but precious little leadership.

Back in the mid 1990's I conducted a number of surveys in Australia, New Zealand, and South East Asia to ascertain who and why people considered to be leaders. I then interviewed 15 of these and the result was my book Leaders, Diamond or Cubic Zirconia? (1998). In the introduction to that book I make the comment "I am not making any judgement as to whether or not any or all [of those listed] are "diamonds or cubic zirconia". That is a conclusion that must be drawn by the reader."

Today I am far less circumspect. As said at the start - I see precious little leadership today no matter what is the arena in which I look for it.

Over the past 20 or so years we have seen flashes of political leadership - then Australian Prime Minister John Howard's response to the Port Arthur Massacre and his driving through of gun control and current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's recent driving through of the pollution levy are good examples. But these flashes are few and far between. In the main we have the unedifying sight of political point scoring and power plays masquerading as "leadership". The party in power (whether in Australia or anywhere else) wants to remain in power and the opposition parties want to take over so anything goes no matter what is really best in the long term for the world, the country, or the populace.

Business, religious, social etc "leadership" is little different. Leadership in these areas seems to be primarily about numbers - market share, revenues, "value" etc (although these may actually be expressed through using one or another synonym) and in enhancing the personal and positional power and influence of those in charge. CEO's and executives seem to act as though they have forgotten that, in reality, they are every bit as much "employees" as are those in entry level positions. This is often seen by the seeking and accepting huge remuneration packages for themselves while fighting against remuneration increases for lower levels and/or otherwise taking action that adversely impacts the well-being and life quality of "employees". Most religious leaders, despite their words, seem to be far too often primarily concerned about narrow sectarian issues and show little or no real concern for refugees, the disadvantaged, and those outside of their immediate area of pastoral responsibility. And so I could continue.

Cubic zirconia abounds!

When I was researching for my latest book my surveys asked a wide range of people for their understanding of leadership. The messages I got back can be summarised as : "a leader is someone who I can trust and respect and who enables me to get things done and who, in the process, inspires me to do my best and to achieve results."

As I replied to my questioner, there is plenty of power and authority; there is plenty of command and control; there is plenty of talk - but precious little leadership. And that's a tragedy.

What do you think?

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

No there's not!

I use public transport whenever possible - it saves the hassle of traffic and parking even if, at least in Sydney, it can sometimes be unreliable.

One of the benefits of using public transport is that it gives me the opportunity to observe people. Yesterday, for example, there was a young man who got on the train a few stations after me. I'd guess he was early 20's, big build, and, from his clothes, was clearly involved in some form of manual work. He was heavily tattooed and sat in the seat in front of me where he openly indulged in drinking a large bottle of beer. The impression I got was "don't mess with me!" We reached his station and, as he stood up to alight, a woman, probably in her 80's and using a cane for support, also stood up from a few seats away. The train lurched and she stumbled. Like lightening the young man reached out, saved her from falling, then gently assisted her down the stairs, out the door, and onto the platform. As the train moved off he was walking and chatting with her and ensuring she was ok.

I couldn't help but compare this experience with one a few days previously when a group of school children got on the train. From their uniforms this very neat and tidy group (males and females) were all from prestigious private schools on Sydney's North Shore. They were aged around 16 and, as is often the case with young people, were talking loudly about their day's experience. At first glance this group appeared to be self-assured and confident. But, as with my experience yesterday, appearances were deceptive. Everyone in the carriage was quickly aware that the boys had sat some form of test and one boy in particular had not done as well as expected. He commented that his father would be furious about the results. One of the girls suggested he discuss his father's expectations with his father and the boy was obviously terrified at the thought. After some further discussion, and as the doors closed after the group alighted, I heard another of the boys then suggest: "Well, if its that bad, there's always suicide!"

Its a very long time since I was a school boy. As the train moved off I thought about my experiences with school tests and exams in the late 1950's. Neither I nor anyone I knew always got the results that our parents expected and there were times when we took results home very apprehensively! Like this group, we too talked about our results vis a vis parental expectations - but I have no recollection of anyone ever suggesting suicide as an option - even in jest.

I find it a sad commentary on our society when a child shows fear in relation to talking with parents and even more sad when, even if in jest, another child can suggest suicide as the solution.

Many years ago (1946) Victor Frankl, a Concentration Camp survivor, wrote a book called "Man's Search for Meaning" in which he recalled the desperation of concentration camp existence. He concluded that it is in knowing that we matter to someone somewhere that gives life meaning. Our society seems to have degenerated into an economic rationalist abyss where all that matters is "the bottom line". In this world, for far too many people, suicide is always an option. And tragedy can strike again.

Every person matters. Every person is important. Every person is deserving of respect and consideration. Every person can make a positive contribution to society. That is the message we need to get out alongside the emphasis on bottom line results. When it is again realised that, despite the rhetoric, we actually do live in a society not an economy then, when someone says "there's always suicide" the response can be "no there's not!"

What do you think?

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

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

Customer Service - yet again!

The media has recently been discussing research that indicates at least part of the reason for the downturn in retail sales is a lack of customer service - retail staff are too few or too disinterested or too busy to really work with the customer in order to make a sale. Its a good point.

But the retailers themselves are a key part of the problem - not just their staff.

Yesterday is a case in point.

One of my daughters works part time in a retail store in order to help fund her university course. On Monday afternoon she was asked to do a particular task when the store opened on Tuesday. She started work just before 9-00 am and was about to do as she had been asked when a customer walked in. The next 40 minutes were spent working with the customer and a large sale was the result. During this selling process her manager arrived and watched what was happening. Immediately my daughter had concluded the sale her manager approached and berated her for not doing what she had been asked to do as a priority. My daughter was told that the other task - a matter of merchandising relating to placement of stock - should have taken precedence over the customer. When my daughter pointed out the importance of the customer and the volume of the sale, she was told that questioning her manager's instructions and priorities was a career limiting activity!

Now it so happens that the store at which my daughter works is part of a national chain that has recently been complaining that sales are down and it has issued a profit downgrade to the market. From my observations over some months, with managerial attitudes like that shown yesterday, I'm not surprised!

As I have said before, customer service is not "rocket science".

But it starts with an organisation being genuinely committed to the provision of service - not just some slogan on a wall or written into an Annual Report or business plan. And executives and managers need to model the service required. Its a truism to point out that without customers there is no-one to buy whatever is being sold and, without sales, cash flow and profit are adversely affected. Therefore there are sound financial reasons for providing adequate staff who are well trained and engaged with their product and organisation - who want to sell because they enjoy the customer interaction.

A key part of leadership is creating an environment in which people can achieve desired results. This means, in part, ensuring that the right people are there in the right numbers with the right products and the right resources at the right time and with the right sort of role modelling from their bosses.

At least one national retail chain seems to have forgotten this. What a pity. Especially because they have great product - but it won't sell itself.

What do you think?

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

Masterchef: a blood sport?

If you read the Sydney Morning Herald today you may have noticed an opinion piece that implied the popular TV reality show, Masterchef, is a blood sport.

I happened to watch it last night - yes, I know that this may not have been the wisest thing to do - but I was impressed with the reaction of the contestants when one person, Elly, I think, had problems with her dish. The contestants were cooking for the Dalai Lama and Elly had all sorts of disasters resulting in the possibility of her not presenting a course to the judges. The other contestants got behind her and helped her. The approach was summed up by one of Elly's competition who said something along the lines of "cooking for the Dalai Lama is bigger than the competition between us".

There's a message here that relates to the subject I have been dealing with recently - customer service.

Our western business model seems to be predicated on the individual. I know we talk "teams" and "cooperation" and the like, but we tend to reward individuals. Just like in Masterchef, in most organisations there will only be one winner. The result is that, when the chips are down, competition comes to the fore and it is "what's in it for me" that takes precedence in what I do and who I support. In this situation the customer can run a very poor second to me winning a bonus or a promotion or some other reward.

Great customer service comes when everyone realises that serving the customer and meeting her or his needs must be preeminent. This is quite easy when your customer is the Dalai Lama - but every customer deserves the same level of respect and service.

Great customer service demands the right sort of leadership. What sort of leadership is reflected in the service you and your organisation provides?

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

Customer Service - there's more!

It was interesting to note that one of the TV Channels in Sydney ran a piece on customer service last evening. They looked at the difference between what the various major grocery retail chains promised in their advertising about service and what they actually delivered. The results were not what any of the organisations involved really wanted. The TV program seemed to imply that this was a training issue.

I have 2 daughters who supplement their university studies by working as casuals in the retail industry. They see the issue as being a little more complex - and I think they're right. They think the problem involves 3 things - application of policy, training of employees, and customer behaviour.

First, customer behaviour.

One of the things that frustrates my daughters is customers who refuse service - customers who seem to be in such a hurry that any attempt to provide information is treated with rudeness and, sometimes, offensive behaviour. Generally these seem to be the customers who want to push ahead of anyone else who may be waiting or is even being served and for whom the entire matter of a sales transaction seems to be the worst thing in the world. "Get enough of these in a shift," I was told, "and its easy to forget that you have a primary role to help the customer."

Second, training of employees.

This really is a critical matter. As a customer I am often frustrated when sales assistants seem to show no interest in what they are selling and even less interest in me. Its as though they are simply going through the motions of "customer service" without really believing in what they are doing.

The easy response to this is to say that he or she has an "attitude problem". But that simply isn't true. The person involved has a behaviour problem - they are not doing what they have been trained to do - and that is all about behaviour. The fact is that, like most other people, I'm not really concerned about what a salesperson thinks of me or of the goods or services they are selling. That's their business. What I am concerned about is how they relate to me - and that is behavioural. Organisations need to ensure that their employees are properly trained to deliver good customer service no matter what they may think or what they may be feeling.

Application of Policy.

This is where the role of management becomes critical. Leaders and managers have a responsibility to create an environment in which their staff can be successful. And this is the key area in which most fall down. Unless those in leadership positions model the appropriate behaviour, they cannot complain when their staff fall short of desired standards. This is where the examples I used in my earlier blog on customer service stand out. Both Trevor at Fantastic Furniture and Mark at Jaxquickfit Tyres were leaders who demonstrated the behaviour their organisations wanted in relation to customer service. Its no wonder that the people who replaced my son's bed and the technicians who worked on my car continued the practice of good customer service - they saw it in their leaders.

Another part of this application of policy is recognition of "you get what you reward". Some years ago Ken Blanchard in "The One Minute Manager" wrote "surprise someone: catch them doing something right!" Attention from a leader is a very powerful means of recognition and reward. In your organisation where do you place the most emphasis? Do you pay more attention to what person does right ..... or to what they do wrong?


You cannot affect the way a customer relates to you. But you can affect how you relate to any and every customer - and that's the key to good customer service.

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

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

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