How you respond tells a lot

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

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

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

Dear Doug,

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

ZZZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’d love to know what you think.

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

What Alan Jones’ comments really tell us

Over this past weekend it has become clear that one of Australia’s most influential broadcasters – someone who is sometimes labelled a “shock jock” grossly overstepped the mark in a virulent and totally offensive set of remarks about the Prime Minister and the very recent death of her father.

   

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

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

Second, in relation to politics. I am a past member of the Liberal Party in Australia and was once asked to nominate for Federal Parliament. I am no longer a member of any political party and, again as I say in "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I think a strong case can be made for arguing that the rise of political parties is a sign of the decline of democracy. For that reason I support independent candidates at elections.

In other words, I write this with no political agenda and from a perspective which believes Alan Jones (and anyone else) has an absolute right to free speech.

I believe that attacks such as this one by Jones tells us a lot about Jones and, from the fact that, with one exception, no-one at the function where he made the remarks appears to have been offended by them, we learn something about the people who were present that evening. It tells me that these people have no real concept of the unconditional respect for a person that ought to be the hallmark of leaders and aspiring leaders. It indicates to me that these people are ones who are lacking in true self-confidence and who compensate for this lack by a retreat into some form of fundamentalism and attack. In "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control: knowledge, change and neuroscience", I say:

Self-confident people are those who understand that there is no need for any form of ‘talking down to’ or ‘putting down of’ other people. Self-confident people are those who always treat others with respect and who, as a result, ultimately expect to earn trust and respect for themselves ... A self-confident person is one who is always cognisant of the fact that everyone has his or her own issues with which they have to deal. .... Self-confidence is not weakness or any behaviour that indicates a lack of personal resolve. But neither is it the bold, brassy over-confidence that is encountered in the worst examples of some who seek to place unacceptable levels of pressure on people in order to achieve results.

Alan Jones (and his supporters) exhibits all the signs of a G1 Leader and of what I term "First Generation Leadership” – an approach that became challenged during the 1950’s and which has long since reached its “use-by” date. This is a male-dominated, “born-to-rule” approach in which the leader considers himself (it is usually a male) beyond reproach and with no need to show any respect to others unless they comply with his thinking and demands. Invariably First Generation Leadership and bullying are inextricably intertwined.

If a person wants to be a grub and/or a bully, that is their prerogative. But the existence of grubs and bullies should alert us to the need to change both what we look for in leaders and how we behave as leaders. What do you think?

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

PPM Starts at the Top

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

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

PPM (Piss Poor Management) starts at the top.

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

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

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

Scary!

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

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

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

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

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

Bullying - a clear indicator of PPM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is "customer service" an oxymoron?

I have just come off the phone from talking with Optus. Here in Australia they are purported to be a communications company. Can you guess what's coming next?

You got it!

Optus suck at communicating - at least with me.

Let me bore you with the details. Recently a mobile phone was stolen and the appropriate steps were taken to notify the Police, cancel the sim card, and make an insurance claim. Today I received notification that the claim was approved and I was given a number to call in order to arrange settlement of the claim. This should be easy, I thought, and phoned them! I spent the next 30 minutes in a never ending loop that took me back to the same place 4 times. Yes, my patience wore thin and I eventually hung up.

A cup of tea later and I tried again. This time what a difference. I was fortunate to strike an agent who was different - he wanted to help. With his help I was through the system in just over 5 minutes and everything was finalised. What a pity he's possibly the only person like that at Optus! I hope they pay him more than the CEO - he deserves it.

Having just come off some pretty spectacular examples of really good customer service (see my recent blogs) I found today particularly frustrating. Big companies like Optus just don't seem to get it. They confuse "service" with telephone prompts that have rigid specifications and are often confusing in themselves.

So let me spell it out for Optus and others who are confused.

Customer service means individual attention to the needs and concerns of another individual. It involves the investment of some time by a knowledgeable person who is willing and able to listen to the needs and concerns of another person then help resolve whatever it is that needs attention. Computers can't do this. Harried, poorly trained call centre people who are under pressure to minimise the time they spend with each customer can't do this. Forcing customers into interactions with these will simply add to blood pressure levels and an increase of complaints to the appropriate authorities.

Its not rocket science.

People like me want customer service when we have a problem and we expect to receive it given the charges that are made for telephone services, banking services, government services and the like. Failure to provide the service we want and need results in blogs like this, then customer churn, then reduced profits, and so on. Its a leadership issue and, Optus, you're failing the leadership test.

Organisations like Fantastic Furniture, JaxQuickfit Tyres, and the NSW Fire Brigades get it. Why can't Optus?

What do you think?

More 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

There's no leadership to be seen yet

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

 

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

 

This message seems lost to both parties at the moment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Leaders and Threat

So Tony Blair's memoirs are out. I haven't yet read them but apparently he partly justifies the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by claiming that it was necessary to send the message that attacking the USA would not be tolerated. On the radio yesterday I heard an interview in which Blair went on to say that the greatest threat to world peace was Islamic fundamentalism.

Sounds pretty screwed up to me. Sure as sure can be, it doesn't look or sound like leadership. It sounds far more like the actions of the schoolyard bully and his/her mates who have the attitude we can do what we like and don't you dare touch us.

But Blair is right on one thing. The greatest threat to world peace is fundamentalism - but it doesn't matter whether the label is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. Immediately any person or group claims to be the only purveyor of truth - to be the only way to righteousness and God (no matter how 'God' may be defined) - and makes it clear that they are prepared to use violence (physical, emotional, or mental) in order to achieve their goals we have a problem.

This is the realisation stated by General Petraeus in his condemnation of the plan by the Dove Outreach Centre in Florida to burn copies of the Koran. I suspect that members of the Dove Outreach Centre would see the burning of the Bible as an act of violence and I suspect they would argue for retaliation against anyone who committed what they would see as an act of sacrilege. They have a total right to have such feelings. But equally the Muslim community have the same right to feel affronted and attacked by the burning of the Koran.

Unfortunately the statement by Blair that identifies only Muslim fundamentalism and his comments justifying the invasion of Iraq give the totally wrong message. It is a toxic message - one that gives succour to extremists of other faiths - and by such action exacerbates both the possibility and the probability of violence.

True leadership recognises that the issue is far more complex than the simplistic idea of sending "a message of total clarity to the world" after September 11. True leadership is far more complex than attacking the activities of one extremist group while ignoring or tacitly condoning the activities of other extremist groups. True leadership seeks to deal with the root causes - what Deming (the father of the Quality movement) called the systems causes as opposed to the special causes. And this is something that the past and current activities in Iraq and Afghanistan fail to do.

We need leadership that can deal with the increasing amounts of ambiguity and uncertainty that exist in every arena of life. First and Second Generation Leadership have got us into this mess. We need Third Generation Leadership to get us out of it. A clue to what this might be like can be found at http://www.blog.ottoscharmer.com/?=attentional+violence&submit=GO

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

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

The Australian Elections - failures in leadership

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

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

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

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

Australia deserves better than this.

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

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

Improved Profits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I like Gen Y

Recently I was discussing leadership and a few names I didn't know were nominated as leaders who were respected. Enquiry ascertained that these people were considered to be:

• legitimate
• effective
• efficient

Legitimacy was deemed to be "doing the right thing" in that their actions reflected the over-riding moral responsibility of the organisations for which they worked. Effectiveness and efficiency were nominated as measures of how well they carried out their role. Further discussion ascertained that these people were seen as ones who demonstrated:

• congruence between what they said and did - they seek to be themselves rather than present a facade
• unconditional positive regard for everyone while having the ability to make it clear when they find behaviour to be unacceptable
• a willingness to learn from others - to see others more as "peers" rather than as part of some hierarchical structure

What I really like about Gen Y is that, despite whether I may like how they do it, they demonstrate an openness and authenticity that enables them to demonstrate these factors.

I'm rather excited by Gen Y. I like the authenticity I see - even if it is often confronting and means that I have to make personal adjustments.

In Gen Y I see the seeds of openness and harmony. Sure there is serious questioning of the status quo in every area of life including religion and politics. Sure they are blunt and, compared with how I was brought up, often rude and apparently dismissive. Sure there are (and will be) vehement discussions and arguments where enthusiasm often trumps knowledge. But all that is both necessary and healthy - there is much today that is well overdue for change. In Gen Y I see people who just might be able to bring about a world with far less hypocrisy and cant than the one we live in today.

Let me know what you think. Use the comments tag below.

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

On May 25, 1878 the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta "HMS Pinafore" opened in London. In this work Ralph Rackstraw, a "common sailor" and Josephine Corcoran, the daughter of his ship's captain, fall in love - a love that is doomed because of the difference in their social stations. However Little Buttercup, a woman selling goods to the ship's complement, makes the startling admission that, many years before when she was a nursemaid, she mixed up two children. She makes amends for her error by making it clear that Ralph Rackstraw is, in reality, the one of high birth and vice versa. Once this is known, the two switch places and love blossoms.

Gilbert's lyrics were, in part, drawing attention to the sometime farcical situation in which command - leadership - belonged to people by right of birth and had nothing whatsoever to do with competence and training.

This was the world of First Generation Leadership and 1G Leaders. A person's birth determined one's place in society and, therefore, their ability to lead. In the 1950's and 60's this was still a significant (even if diminishing) factor.

Today, at least in developed countries, this style of leadership is seldom encountered and even less accepted. We live in a world in which Third Generation Leadership and 3G Leaders are increasingly demanded across the world.

Third Generation Leadership is the component that can draw together the various leadership approaches being used by any organisation so that the leadership provided in this 21st century is increasingly effective.

Successful organisations tomorrow will be those in which Third Generation Leadership is the norm.

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

Please let me know what you think of this. Click on the feedback button below.

3G Leader Characteristics

In the Harvard Business Review's book "Leaders on Leadership" (1992), Jimmy Carter, past President of the USA, says: "[a leader requires] the ability to work with other people, the capacity to expand one's mind and one's heart as the years go by, and to see the broader dimensions of the future. Most important, it's necessary not to fear the prospect of failure but to be determined not to fail. If a leader is not willing to attempt things that might not succeed, then he has little faith in himself or the goal he seeks to achieve."

In my book "Leaders: diamonds or cubic zirconia" (1998) I quote the people interviewed as stressing the first building block for a leader is for a person to recognise that they have a leadership responsibility and, coupled with this, to have the self confidence to acknowledge they are not always right and so a preparedness to enlist help from others and to apologise when they are wrong.

Both of these are activities that are possible because the leader has moved away from the red zone of anxiety to the blue zone of courage (see http://thesuccesszone.com/). They are characteristics of Third Generation Leadership and of 3G Leaders.

Other characteristics of Third Generation Leadership and 3G Leaders are:

• they engage with others rather than seeking to obtain obedience or compliance
• they are collaborative and facilitative
• they encourage growth and self directed learning by everyone
• they respect other people even if they are not receiving respect in return
• they invite questions and discussion
• they ask questions with a view to helping others find their own solutions
• they listen to help others engage with their own or shared solutions
• they are totally non discriminatory in thought, word and action

Because of these characteristics, 3G Leaders are able to create environments in which people feel:

• emotionally safe
• unconditionally respected
• believed in as individuals
• listened to

and these are the critical conditions for people to be engaged not only with what they do but also with those they are doing it with. These are the optimal conditions for organisational and personal success.

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

please let me know what you think about this. Click on the "comment" box below.

The three generations of leadership - G1 Leadership, G2 Leadership, G3 Leadership

We are all used to hearing about generations of mobile phone technology and G3 is now dominant. Similarly we are used to hearing about the various versions of computer programs - terms like V1, V2, V3 are commonplace.

But what about leadership?

When you read the leadership literature it seems as though there is an underlying assumption that the basics of leadership have remained the same for countless years. I am as guilty as anyone else of allowing this view to continue.

But not any more.

One of my major recent learnings has been that there are at least 3 generations of leadership - we can call these "G1 Leadership" (or "Leadership v1.0"), "G2 Leadership" (or "Leadership v2.0") and "G3 Leadership" (or "Leadership v3.0").

G1 Leadership is characterised by a command and control mentality. It has its origins in the world prior to the Second World War. Leadership in this generation is predicated on the follower being obedient and at all time showing respect for their leaders. Followers are not expected to question the decisions of and/or instructions from their leaders and any questions made by the leader are primarily for the purpose of enabling the leader to make a decision. Followers obtain security and certainty by following the rules in a reasonably predictable world. Hierarchy is seen as natural and essential for the smooth operation of society.

G2 Leadership is a development from this. The key difference is that "conformance" replaces "obedience" although the follower is still expected to show respect for the leader at all times. G2 Leadership arose in the 1940's and 50's out of research by management theorists and humanistic psychologists who showed that rewarding people for compliance to instructions was more productive than blind obedience. Most current leadership development programs are based on the belief that followers will act in consistence with what the leader models and that providing positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviour ("operant conditioning") is the most powerful means of motivating people to achieve results. Access to or isolation from information is a key power base in this approach. Again in this model, some form of hierarchy is accepted as a core tenet of society and upwards questioning is often discouraged while questioning from the leader is generally for the purpose of helping the follower solve his or her problems.

Today's Generation Y tends to have considerable difficulty with this approach. They know that with access to the internet and social networking there is very little information that can remain hidden for prolonged periods. In addition they prefer to work out their own solutions to problems rather than relying on others to provide them with answers. There tends to be a significant disconnect between Generation Y followers and G2 Leaders with G2 Leaders often bemoaning the work and social attitudes of Generation Y.

Which brings us to G3 Leadership.

G3 Leadership is all about engaging people with both what they do and those with whom they do it. A G3 Leader operates in an atmosphere of mutual respect between leader and follower and in which the leader has the maturity to distinguish between the person (who is always acceptable) and their actions (which might not be acceptable.) Where G1 Leaders and G2 Leaders have their brain's locus of control primarily in the red zone (basic/reptilian - limbic areas), G3 Leaders have their brain's locus of control in the cortical areas of the brain - the blue zone.

The really good news is that we can all learn to become G3 Leaders.

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

Please let me know what you think about this. Click on the comment link below.

Festina Lente !! (Urgent or Important?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return on Investment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership and Fear

Last weekend it was pouring with rain in Sydney. My son and his mates decided to go on their usual 4WD adventure and, as was to be expected, managed to get at least one of the 4WD's bogged. While they were pulling it out (they always have at least 4 vehicles in their party for safety reasons) another vehicle came up and the guys in it ridiculed them for getting stuck. Noticing that they had no support vehicles, my son and his mates warned the newcomers to be very careful as the conditions were quite dangerous - especially if you had little or no experience and/or were on your own. The newcomers jeered and sped off - this was a new vehicle and they were having fun.

A few minutes later when my son and his mates were restarting their bogged vehicle there was an urgent scream for help over the VHF radio. The newcomers had gone into water and the vehicle was filling rapidly. They were totally bogged, helpless and panicking. When my son's mates reached the accident they found that the doors were locked shut and water inside the car was at the point where possible drowning was a reality. In addition, the driver hadn't known enough to immediately shut off his engine when it went under water and, because there was no snorkel, the turbo charger had ensured there was water throughout the engine. Rescuing the vehicle and occupants was reasonably easy compared with getting the vehicle sufficiently mobile for it to make its way back to the nearest workshop where major repairs could be done. Of course, they had totally voided the vehicle's new car warranty so repairs are going to be very expensive.

I think there's a metaphor here for what sometimes happens in organisations.

There are times when some managers and leaders seem to follow a "crash through or crash" philosophy in relation to achieving results and/or introducing change. When this happens it is not uncommon for those in a hurry to ridicule those who are a little more experienced and/or cautious. The impact on everyone can be extremely traumatic in the event of things going wrong.

Good leaders know that fear can be a positive emotion. It can tell you that things need a bit of consideration before embarking on action. It can enable you to consider alternative ways of attaining your goal. It can lead you to new learning in a very positive way. That's why good leaders generally listen carefully to advice and suggestions from those with more experience.

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

Leaders look around

Sydney's roads (like those of most other major cities) are usually crowded and there are seldom enough lanes to satisfy drivers trying to get from point A to point B. The problem is compounded when cars are allowed to stop and/or park by the kerb with the result that another traffic lane is taken out of play.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against the use of cars and I don't oppose parking in shopping precincts (even when it means parking at the side of the road) and I'm not trying to redesign Sydney's roads so that they are wider and can take more traffic. No, my concern is with people who don't seem to pay much attention to the impact their stopped or parked car has on other traffic.

Think about it.

How often do you see a car come to a stop and, with no apparent attention to the traffic, the driver's door opens and, sometimes after what seems to be an eternity, a person slowly alights and does whatever else they intend to do. Sometimes this "whatever else they intend to do" includes opening the passenger door on the same side and allowing children to alight with traffic streaming past. All too often this will involve a parent getting a baby out of a baby capsule or a child out of a safety seat which is a process that takes a fair bit of time - all the while with the door open and endangering both those at the car and passing traffic. In even worse cases the process will be further delayed while the parent attends to their child's needs such as changing a nappy.

I have a lot of understanding of where the parent is coming from - I have 5 children (now all grown up) and 4 grandchildren - but I do not understand why some thought is not paid to the dangers of tending children or allowing passengers to alight under such a dangerous manner. A bit of thought and planning when getting people into the car and/or when reaching one's destination means that dealing with baby or children and allowing passengers to alight can be performed much more safely for everyone when done from the doors of the car closest to the kerb. It just requires a bit of thought and foresight. No "rocket science" involved.

Many leaders in politics, business, religious groups, and society at large seem to have the same "not thinking" attitude when it comes to their operations. Like parents and responsible drivers - most of whom genuinely care for their children's / passengers' safety - either they do things that are inherently dangerous or they allow their people to take risks that could and should be avoided. Elliott Jaques ("Requisite Organization", 1998, Cason Hall & Co) talks about the need for managers and leaders to consider the broader picture as well as the immediate issues being dealt with. In fact he makes the point that if you can't see the bigger picture and deal with things from a broader perspective, you probably shouldn't be in a management or leadership role.

Leaders (even parents and car drivers) need to look around and see the bigger picture.

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

Its a cultural thing

A few years ago when John Corrigan, Andrew Mowat and myself first started working with schools, we thought that helping teachers understand and change their behaviour would bring about greater levels of student engagement and hence improved results for students, teachers, and the schools. Theoretically we were right - the key to increasing student engagement does lie in the attitudes and behaviours of teachers. However what we found was that unless the culture of the school was totally supportive of the new attitudes and behaviours any improvement was transitory. (More information about this is available from http://www.gr8education.com/) This lead us to the realisation that we needed to deal with leadership issues first and foremost.

My blog on Tuesday dealt with service problems and the concern that different people dealing with the same organisation can have vastly disparate experiences. I made the point that ideally every person dealing with an organisation should have a positive experience. The issue, I argued, is one of leadership.

Deming, the 'father of quality' (as some have said), made the point that only about 15% of problems are caused by special causes. He also made the point that these are the areas on which most attention is focused because we are "seen" to be doing something about the problem - that fact that it may be simply a cosmetic repair that will eventually break down doesn't really seem to faze us. Deming argued that the time, money and effort should be put into dealing with the systems causes because, although they will probably take longer to fix, the repairs will be long-lasting.

Effectively Deming argued that leaders deal with the systems causes of quality issues because they know that ultimately quality is always a cultural matter- and leaders determine culture.

There used to be a military joke that stated military personnel of a particular country had a philosophy of "ready, fire, aim" - when the defence budget is astronomical and the culture is "gung ho" then it is easy to slip into a behaviour that shoots first and asks questions afterwards. I see this today in the behaviour of many "leaders" - and it shows primarily in a predilection for immediate rather than considered action. In the area of service quality this can be seen by disciplinary action against individuals rather than correcting the culture that forces them to minimise the amount of time they spend with each person seeking help.

What is the culture like in your organisation? What systems issues need to be addressed in order to ensure all your customers/clients receive high quality help when they need it? Before singling out individuals for blame and correction, remember that when you point a finger at someone, there are more fingers pointing back at you. If its a systems or cultural issue, dealing with a special cause won't fix it.

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