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

Empires - building and destroying - high evidence of PPM

One of my neighbours used to be a Police Officer. From time to time we chat and set the world to rights - someone has to do it, and it might as well be us! Just the other day he raised the issue of empire building - the situation where managers become more concerned about their status and power than they are with results - consequently they add staff (full-time, part-time, casual, contract etc - it doesn't matter) rather than examining work practices and capabilities then considering these in light of the results to be achieved. Very often the impact of such actions is demotivation of good staff, under employment of many, reduced productivity (it takes more resources to achieve the same output), but increased remuneration for the manager because of the 'increase in responsibility'. As he says, he's seen it too often and, despite the rhetoric of organisations operating efficiently, it is one of the most common sources of frustration at the lower levels of organisations.

In part our discussion arose because of the recent statement by the NSW (Australia) Treasurer that, while currently embarking upon a reduction of 5,000 people from the NSW Public Service, a cut of another 10,000 is to be made in the next financial year. We've both seen it all before! Time and again politicians announce cuts to the Public Service, implement those cuts, demoralise and politicise the remaining workforce, then, when they are eventually ejected from power, leave behind a public service that is larger and, often, less efficient than the one with which they started. In the interim they've lost many really good people and much of the corporate knowledge that is really essential to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Empire building and empire demolition both tend to be indicators of PPM - Piss Poor Management. Both adding more staff and reducing staff levels are very often "easy way outs" for complex problems that managers don't want to confront. Rather than dealing with productivity issues, PPM will add staff even though there is current capability available. Similarly, rather than appropriately deal with serious systems problems its easier to make staff cuts then complain about the amount of leave accumulated by the reduced workforce that remains.

Lets consider a few issues in NSW. Removing graffiti costs the NSW rail service some $60 million a year. Road trauma in NSW costs $billions a year. Crimes such as breaking and entering, theft, burglary, malicious damage, etc cost individuals and insurers millions of dollars each year. The authorities admit that very few of these crimes are fully investigated or offenders arrested and charged because the resources available to Police and the like are inadequate.

There's an old saying that "prevention is better than cure" and another that advocates putting a fence at the top of a cliff rather than maintaining an ambulance at the cliff's foot. If NSW needs to save large amounts of money - and I fully accept that this is the case - then investing money in actions to prevent graffiti, to improve road safety (and speed cameras will never do this but improved roads, increased and obvious police presence, and better driving training will) and to prevent crime at all levels has the potential to save far more money than may be available from simply cutting public service numbers or reducing expenditure in areas such as education, social welfare services, etc. Unfortunately no politician of any flavour seems to understand this.

PPM indicates a lack of leadership. Beware both those who build empires to bolster their own egos and those who slash and burn staffing levels for short term expediency and to gain political points.

What do you think? Please post your comments below.

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

Poor Customer Service Reflects PPM

Don't you just love Apple stores. As you walk past you see all these exciting pieces of electronic equipment and the place is staffed by such happy, helpful people. There's an immediate reaction: "I like the look of this place and I've just got to go in." Now that's pretty good as far as it goes.

But what if you've got a small problem - like your IPhone's playing up? Just supposing you're close to an Apple store when this happens. You walk in and its one of those times when there's a lot more staff than customers. Staff are standing around chatting to each other but a receptionist quickly comes to attend to you. You explain the problem - and suddenly the famed Apple service disappears. "I'm sorry," you are told, "we're too busy to help you with this right now. You have to go on line and make an appointment." You look around. Staff are still chatting to each other - clearly not busy either with technology or customers: "Oh,", you say, "what about someone from over there? Can they have a quick look at it?" "No," comes the reply, "you will have to go on line and make an appointment."

Suddenly having anything other than Apple equipment seems to be a good option!

Now, as you might suspect, this isn't just a hypothetical example. It happened this morning at an Apple store in Sydney.

I can understand making an appointment when a store is packed with customers. I can understand that whatever is wrong with the phone might require a technician to examine it. I can understand that the problem may take a little time to be fixed and that there might be no phone for a short time.

What I can't understand is why, in a store that is obviously not busy, no-one can even make a brief examination of the phone and perhaps be able to help solve a reception issue. Somewhere in Apple is a manager - perhaps more than one - who is more concerned with process than with customers. And that's PPM - piss poor management.

What do you think?

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

Keeping good staff

I was chatting with a few people at a Business Breakfast this morning when one of them, a senior executive of a good sized company (300+ employees) commented that they had a difficulty retaining their best apprentices after they qualified. It seems as though too many of the one's they want to keep go on to other employers within about a year of qualifying.

Lets consider a "for instance":

"Harry" (not his real name) finished his apprenticeship in June 2011. he was immediately nominated for advanced training and, over the last 10 months, has completed 25 additional courses that enhance his knowledge and employability. All these courses have been paid for by his employer. Harry absolutely loves his work and is nominated by his manager as the best technician in the company. As a result he gets most of the challenging work and he has a record of completing jobs on time, within budget, and to a very high quality standard.

But Harry's boss fits the PPM (Piss Poor Management) profile. Harry answers to a foreman, who answers to a controller, who answers to a manager, who answers to a general manager. Until recently the controller was the foreman and the constant complaints by Harry and the other techs related to their foreman allowing apprentices to follow questionable work practices and of taking short cuts in repair work rather than doing a job properly the first time. Eventually their frustration forced the manager to act - so he promoted the foreman! To the relief of Harry and the other techs, one of their peers - a person they respected and trusted - was then appointed foreman. Now, everyone hoped, things would improve. They haven't. No matter how much the new foreman tries to have things done the way they should be, he is stymied by the controller and the manager.

The General Manager and, above him, the Group CEO, should be aware of this issue. But, if they are aware, they're doing nothing. They see the company reaping the benefits from the quality and quantity of work done by Harry and his fellow techs - but they ignore immoral (and sometimes illegal) behaviour of the manager and controller. They are oblivious to the frustration felt and expressed by the foreman, Harry, and the other techs. The result? Harry, the foreman, all the other qualified techs, and the top 3 apprentices are all seeking other jobs.

Now I don't know the situation in the company represented by the person I was talking with this morning - we haven't got to any detailed chatting yet - but I do know that poor leadership is one of the key factors in organisations losing good staff - especially younger people. Good people don't work for bad bosses.

In a recent article (http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/6-Signs-That-You-Might-Be-A-Leader.html) I set out the characteristics of leaders who retain staff and who run high performing units and/or organisations:

• they engage with others as individuals 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 genuine 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, they are able to create environments in which people feel:

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

Harry and his colleagues are leaving because because their organisation doesn't have a culture that encourages high performance by everyone. They've had their fill of PPM.

If you want to retain your best people, start by getting rid of PPM and develop the right culture.

Do you agree? Please make your comments below.

More 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

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

More signs of PPM

Bullying is only one sign of PPM (Piss Poor Management)! There are many others.

Here are some examples provided to me in the past two weeks:

• A manager who employs people on the basis of the lowest remuneration possible rather than on ability to do the job required
• A manager who refuses to confront poor performance and low quality work because he feels it is important to be "liked" by his staff
• A company where senior executives seldom visit any of the 9 sites away from Head Office and ignore immoral and possibly illegal activity by the managers in those sites - the result is apprentices not paid for overtime work and the emergence of unsafe work practices
• A company where there is a high turnover of qualified staff because they are unhappy about the high volume, low quality work practices encouraged by managers

My point is that PPM can have many faces.

Good managers ensure that everyone clearly understands performance criteria in both qualitative and quantitative terms. They also ensure that those performance standards are high enough to stretch people yet low enough to be attainable. These performance standards are then broken down into easy-to-understand results areas and performance indicators that are properly monitored. Where criteria are being met, recognition is given and where criteria are not being met, clear action is taken to get things back on track - performance standards are not allowed to slide. Good executives ensure there is appropriate oversight and governance in all areas for which they are responsible.

Its not "rocket science" - supervisory and management programs have been teaching this for at least 50 years and good managers have practiced it since time immemorial.

We need to address and eliminate PPM!

What are your experiences with PPM? I'd love to know. Please write your comments below.

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

Bullying - a clear indicator of PPM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PPM issue!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ash Wednesday Revisited

On the radio this morning I heard the announcer say that it was today, 29 years ago that the Ash Wednesday Bush Fires erupted in South Eastern Australia.

I was living in Melbourne in 1983 and I remember the day well.

Like today, it was sunny although, unlike recent Sydney weather, February 16, 1983 was the continuation of a hot, dry period of late summer. I was working quietly in my home office and scarcely noticed the wind rising. However, as the day progressed, the wind got stronger and the sky darkened - but not with rain. I turned on the radio and was quickly aware of the fact that fires had started in various parts of Victoria and South Australia. With the strong winds that had developed, these fires were racing across farm land and through the bush. All available fire crews had been mobilised to fight the various conflagrations.

It was late afternoon when I was contacted and asked to report to the State Relief Centre in Melbourne to help out there. On reporting I was asked to coordinate the Centre's operations and ensure that, as far as possible, people and communities affected urgently received the support and assistance they needed. I'm still proud of the work done by the team with whom I was privileged to work.

As I think back over that period, several things come to mind:

First, apart from those who were already part of the various emergency and relief organisations, the absolute commitment to help and the generosity of so many "ordinary" people was amazing. All support agencies in Melbourne were besieged by people offering time, money, and goods to help those in need. The contract drivers for a major trucking company volunteered their vehicles to transport goods wherever they may be needed - and that included all costs involved. Quick food chains arrived with food for the volunteers both wherever they may be. In affected areas, accommodation, food, clothing, and all other forms of support miraculously appeared. There was no need to appeal for help - in so many cases, it simply arrived.

Second, that all too often we give only lip-service to the dedication, courage, and commitment of those in the front line of disasters - how often are we quick to criticise the police, the "fireys", the "ambos", and the others who are actually face-to-face with the issues and doing whatever is necessary for as long as necessary in order to achieve results. We praise them on the day then return to simply treating them as part of the scenery until the next major disaster occurs. We are happy to use them when its to our benefit but largely ignore them the rest of the time.

What my experience with the Ash Wednesday Bush Fires taught me is that, when made fully aware of an issue and given the opportunity to contribute, most people will willingly put in astronomical amounts of time and effort to being about a satisfactory solution. Most people want to contribute to something worthwhile and, given the chance, will become fully engaged with achieving results. When they believe that something is worthwhile and their energies are correctly harnessed, ordinary people achieve extraordinary results. Those with specialist training and roles will draw on all of their knowledge and skills while unskilled generalists will go out of their way to provide whatever additional support is required.

The tragedy is that our politicians and business leaders (totally supported by the media) seem to forget this. We are surrounded by walls of spin that seem to assume people either cannot handle the truth or that we cannot be trusted to do anything satisfactorily unless we are rigidly controlled. Our politicians seem to believe that only they and their bureaucrats know what is best - the strongly and rightly criticised legislation from both the Howard Government and the present government affecting Aboriginal communities in Australia is but one case in point. Our business leaders seem to believe that only they know how what are the issues needing to be addressed in their organisations and how to address them. Vested interests from those "in charge" dominate what is done and how it is done.

As I said, my Ash Wednesday Bush Fires experience taught me that, when made fully aware of an issue and given the opportunity to contribute, most people will willingly put in astronomical amounts of time and effort to being about a satisfactory solution. When people are fully informed with the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and then are empowered to help bring about desired results, amazing things happen.

Isn't it about time we really learned this?

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

More information 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.

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

A "quick and dirty" health check

The other day I got asked about a "rule of thumb" check for organisational health.

When I’m called in to help a business assess where it is at and what it should be doing – a bit of a “medical” on the business – my first queries are simple:

· What is your bank balance right now – today?

· What are your receivables – the money owing to you?

· How much of that will you receive this week? This month?

· How much of it has been due for more than 30 days?

· How much money do you need to pay out this week? This month?

· How much of it has been due for more than 30 days?

· What is the value of your current “work in progress”?

· When will you be able to charge for this?

· When do you expect payment to be received?

· What extra payments will you be liable for before this work is completed?

The answers to these questions give me a “quick and dirty” indication of the health of the organisation because they give me an indication of current cash flow issues – and positive cash flow is the life blood of a healthy organisation. Based on these answers I can advise whether intensive care (talk to your Board and bankers/financial advisors “NOW” because your situation is seriously bad) is required or whether some other action is more appropriate.

Third Generation Leadership = Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its still a "SNAFU"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The worst of all possible worlds!

I have just been contacted by someone who has been the recipient of some "interesting" human resource management practices.

"Edward" (not his real name) applied for a senior position with a national organisation and eventually made the short list. At this point he was asked for referees and supplied the names and contact details of people for whom and with whom he had worked over the past 20 years. Several weeks passed and, at the start of March, he was contacted and offered the position. He was thrilled. He believed the organisation to be very reputable and professional.

"Edward" had been surprised at the extent to which background checking had been made (it was not a security-orientated position) and felt that, as he put it, he had been "laundered and drycleaned". However this very factor was a key one in making him want the position - "any organisation that is that thorough has to be a good one to work for," he told me.

He had no hesitation in accepting the offer and, at that stage, he was told that a contract would be drawn up for him. Last Friday the contract arrived and he got his lawyer to check it. The consultant's covering letter said how pleased everyone was that he had accepted the job and nominated a starting date. His lawyer suggested some minor changes and the contract documents were back to the company by Wednesday.

On Wednesday evening he was contacted by the consultant who was acting for the company and told that the offer had been withdrawn "as it is too complicated to negotiate the contract". "Edward" is devastated and I suspect that his lawyer may now become a little more involved.

"Edward" has been caught up in a very bad manifestation of what is probably Second Generation Leadership and with the antics of a 2G Leader. Clearly this is an organisation that demands conformance but it may have regressed to a First Generation Leadership approach of demanding obedience. Whatever the generational stage, it now appears clear that they never had any intention of negotiating and that, from their side, the contract was offered on a "take it or leave it" basis. The problem is that they never made this clear to "Edward".

There can be little doubt that the company's "red zone" approach has infected "Edward" and has engendered a red zone response ("red zones" are contagious.) Across Australia, he's got a lot of friends, family and contacts - I have little doubt as to whether or not he will share this experience with them. And neither the company nor its consultant are likely to have their reputations enhanced in those discussions! "Edward" now sees both the consultant and the company as being toxic.

Third Generation Leadership and 3G Leaders don't play these sorts of games. They are honest and transparent. If they make a decision then decide that they made a mistake they are open about this: they explain the what and the how: they seek to minimise the impact of their mistake on everyone involved: and then they move on. Because 3G Leaders show respect to those with whom they interact, they receive respect in return. 3G Leaders are never found in toxic organisations.

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 Problem with Feedback

I have spent much of this week working with the management team of an organisation with a long and proud history of service to the community. One of the key issues we have been confronting relates to the giving and receiving of feedback to younger people. They have been finding that their traditional ways of doing this need changing.

Feedback is interesting. When I play golf I receive feedback on my stroke immediately after the clubhead hits the ball. Of course I can't change anything at that point and the ball will continue on whatever direction and trajectory I have given it, but I am given information that enables me to make decisions as to whether or not I should make some changes. In the workplace there are some situations like that but, in a vast number of instances, it is necessary for other people to provide me with the feedback that will allow me to decide what if any changes in my behaviour are necessary.

The issue then becomes one of how this feedback is given. And this is the issue my client faces.

In the societal approaches of the past, this wasn't really a problem - which doesn't mean that it was done well - because those more senior to you in an organisation were generally heeded some attention when they spoke. Our society had a world view that said if you were older or in a more senior position then you were to receive respect and your authority was not to be questioned.

This is no longer the case.

In today's world it is increasingly clear that respect has to be earned: it is not automatically given. In today's world it is increasingly clear that authority can quickly be lost if the person giving feedback makes a mistake - and the almost instant availability of information by phone or internet makes it almost certain that any such errors will be quickly discovered - and if the person giving feedback isn't respected or hasn't engaged with the people involved then the probability of someone actively seeking out errors is high.

Which means that if, as a supervisor, manager, leader or whatever you need to learn facilitate engagement of people with both the work that they do and with you as a person. Its not easy.

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

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