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.

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

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.

Now that's what I call customer service!

Like the vast majority of people in Australia, we have smoke detectors fitted in the house. Last night, at about 7-30, the smoke detector certainly went off! The noise was deafening. The problem, however, was that we could neither smell smoke nor see smoke. Yes we had a fire burning in the fireplace in the family room, but that was no different from any other cold night. There was no evidence of a smoke leak from the fire but I extinguished it anyway. I looked everywhere inside and outside the house but nothing to be seen. And the smoke detector went on and on!

I decided to call 000 - the emergency number in Australia - and was quickly channeled to the NSW Fire Brigades. I explained the situation and was told that I had done the right thing and that a fire unit was on its way. About 10 minutes later we had a fire truck and team outside. Like me they checked everything and found nothing. It appears that either our smoke detector had thrown a wobbly and that there was no danger or that, unnoticed by us, a gust of smoke had billowed from the fireplace and triggered the detector. Either way, there was no fire problem.

I felt somewhat embarrassed and apologised to the Station Officer for calling them out on what turned out to be a false alarm. He was absolutely clear - the smoke detector was going off, I had reason to be concerned; I had done everything right and he was pleased that we had acted as we had. He pointed out that had I not taken this action and there had been a fire in the ceiling cavity (which is where we both suspected the problem might have been), the result could have been disastrous.

The fireys spent about 30 minutes checking every possible problem area. They used heat detectors in every room and throughout the ceiling cavity. They went outside and examined every wall and every inch of the roof. And throughout they were friendly, polite, professional, supportive, and thorough. Where they removed any fixture they replaced it correctly and then they apologised to us for any disturbance they may have made!

Sure they were just doing their job. Sure they were just doing what they had been trained to do. But this was customer service at its best. They left us feeling very positive about their response and enormously impressed with every part of the interaction from the first moment of dialling 000 to the last moment when they left.

A great big "thank you" to the team at Pymble Fire Station.

Wouldn't it be great if everyone involved in dealing with the public had the same service ethos as the Fireys? Its not impossible.

More about Douglas 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

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

A Battle for the Mind

“If you believe you can,

or

if you believe you can’t …

Either way you are right!”

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

It is, of course, very true.

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

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

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

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

Third Generation Leadership operates in a different mind space.

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

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

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

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

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

The Australian Elections - failures in leadership

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

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

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

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

Australia deserves better than this.

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

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

Leadership, winter, rain, and puppies!

Those of us living in Sydney know that lately we've had some pretty cold and miserable weather. Yesterday I had to go to Hornsby to do some shopping (not my favourite past time!). The shopping centre was pretty full (school holidays and all) and the retailers should have been very happy with the floor traffic.

I'm a "people watcher" and I decided that having a cup of coffee was a good idea. (Those who know me are very aware that I can almost always find any excuse for a cup of coffee!) I chose a coffee shop quite close to a pet store. Now I don't really like pet stores both because so many of them sell animals bred in "puppy farms" and the like and also because the very presence of pet stores can encourage emotional responses that result in many people buying puppies, kittens, or other pets that they don't really want and that may later be abandoned or abused. However this time I noticed that the pet store was having an interesting and positive effect on shoppers.

From where I sat I could see people coming down the mall from near the car park and most seemed to look quite dismal and disgruntled. Perhaps it was the time of the year and the rain, but people looked grumpy and anxious. Even infants and young children seemed subdued and a bit sullen.

I noticed that almost everyone seemed to head for the pet shop. Even if they were on the other side of the mall most people seemed to cross over to look at the animals as they passed. Behind the glass the puppies were playing in the shredded paper that lined their cages. the puppies were full of the joy of being alive. They were being, well, puppies!

And the effect on the shoppers was instant. Almost without exception, after watching the puppies for a few seconds, people moved on with a lighter step and a smile on their face. Whatever concerns people may have had, for a few moments these were dispelled as the puppies brought some light and sunshine.

It made me think.

As leaders what are we doing to bring some light and sunshine into the lives of those we lead? Part of our role is to inspire.

Perhaps there's a leadership lesson from puppies.

I'd like to know what you think of this. Please make your comment below.

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