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

Is that all there is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012 - How Will You be Remembered?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No there's not!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Not the event but the reaction

Death is something we all know will occur yet, whenever it happens to a loved one, it is always heart wrenching. Over recent months 3 of my friends have had their wives die and other friends had their baby twins die a few days after birth. Although I have experienced bereavement in the death of my parents, I have never experienced what these people are going through and I marvel at the dignity and courage they showed at funerals and elsewhere.

Someone once said words to the effect of "life is what happens to you when you're doing something else." I take that to mean that no matter how organised and controlled you are; no matter what plans you may have made or are implementing; no matter what you may think or believe, there will always be things happening that are unexpected and, possibly, unwanted. I know from bitter experience just how easy it is to react inappropriately when bad things hit you out of the blue.

I've thought a lot about this over the past weekend as we've all remembered the events of 9/11 in 2001. It was a world changing event that caused huge reactions at least in the USA, the UK, and Australia. Some of these reactions were appropriate - the grief, the changing of laws to ensure that everything relating to terrorism was a criminal offence, and the heightening of public awareness of risk. But other of our reactions went too far - certainly that would apply to laws which remove basic rights and which cut across ordinary common law civil liberties. This morning's news report in which the most senior military officer in the USA spoke of the "vengeance" (his word not mine) being exacted for 9/11 also falls into this area.

One of the things that makes us human is our ability to control how we react to both the good and the bad when it hits us. With the bad, its easy to stay in "the red zone" and then find that we are exacerbating rather than resolving the situation. I suspect we're doing that with the issue of terrorism.

Shifting our brain's locus of control from the red zone to the blue zone enables higher level learning to take place. Operating in the blue zone also enables us to examine things in a way that encourages creative and innovative solutions to replace past inappropriate actions. Our emotions remain the same - the way we handle these emotions changes.

I've watched 4 families handle tragedy recently. I admire the blue zone control each has shown. Would that we had more blue zone control in the wider spheres of local and international business, social, diplomatic and all other arenas.

What do you think?

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

Masterchef: a blood sport?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customer Service - there's more!

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

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

First, customer behaviour.

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

Second, training of employees.

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

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

Application of Policy.

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

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


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

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

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/

Leadership, winter, rain, and puppies!

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

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

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

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

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

It made me think.

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

Perhaps there's a leadership lesson from puppies.

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

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

Conditional Respect is Red Zone, Stupid

Well, what a week or two!

Its only a short time since those seeking to break the blockade of Gaza received far more publicity and sympathy than could have been imagined by the stupid (and probably criminal) actions of Israeli forces boarding a ship in international waters and killing at least 9 of those people who, despite what some may say, sought quite legally to defend themselves against this attack.

Its just 10 days since a footballer, Timana Tahu, was prepared to step away from a career high point - representing his state in the Australian Rugby League (RFL) State of Origin series - in order to draw attention to blatantly racist statements by one of RFL's previous "greats". [Despite this ARL experience, in the past 48 hours, we have had two one-time "greats" in the Australian Football League (AFL) again make overtly racist comments.]

That which is common to all of these is the issue of respect.

Clearly the assistant coach in the RFL and the two "greats" from the AFL do not have unconditional respect for all players. Equally clearly the Israeli government does not have unconditional respect for people who fail to comply with what Israel demands. And it is this conditional respect shown sby ome in the RFL and the AFL and by Israel that has caused them problems.

The rights and wrongs of Timana Tahu's action and of the Palestinian blockade will be debated by many and each side is fully entitled to its own opinion. What cannot be denied is that Tahu's reputation has been enhanced while that of the RFL, the AFL, and of Israel has been damaged.

There is no doubt that the actions by those seeking to break the blockade of Gaza were acting provocatively. There is no doubt that the actions of the RFL assistant coach and those of the AFL "greats" were stupid and illegal.

Unfortunately provocation and stupidity are occurrences with which most of us have to deal on a daily basis. For those who operate out of the red zone of conditional respect (see http://www.thesuccesszone.com) this is not really an issue. They perceive such action as some sort of threat (which may or may not be real) and act accordingly - generally they attack by word or action with the hope that such actions will either stop the situation deteriorating or deter further provocative actions. Unfortunately the long term effects are often far from what is desired - the almost universal condemnation by the international community of Israel's action is a case in point.

And that is where Timana Tahu's behaviour stands out.

Tahu could have reacted from the red zone. He could have had a blazing row and/or have taken legal action against his coach. Instead he chose to quietly withdraw, consider his actions, then act in a way that has ensured he will be considered a hero by many because the issue of racism in sport has received attention is a way that should ensure all codes finally take stringent action to stamp out this scourge. This was blue zone behaviour. This was behaviour that showed ability to deal with ambiguity and complexity in a positive manner.

Third Generation Leadership - that leadership that is now so desperately needed throughout the world is leadership that is possible only when our brains have their locus of control firmly in the blue zone. We could go a long way to resolving most of the provocations, threats, and stupid actions in the personal, national, and international arenas if we learned how to manage down our red zones and manage up our blue zones. And this can be learned.

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

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

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

The Killing Fields

I understand that during the Second World War there was a slogan "Loose Lips Sink Ships" which was designed to encourage everyone to be careful about disclosing information that may be of assistance to the enemy. I know that in the 1970's there was a sales training film entitled "Who Killed The Sale" which looked at things such as general chatter by employees of an organisation being overheard by potential customers to the end that an incipient sale was lost.

I thought about this the other day when I had to phone Microsoft about an issue (yes, the same Microsoft of which I spoke in an earlier blog!).

The issue was simple. An older laptop in the house had decided it wouldn't work and the system diagnostics made it clear that radical surgery was the only remedy - a reformat and reinstall of the operating system (Windows XP). Not a major issue, I thought, and one that even a person of my limited technical expertise could do.

All went well until the machine asked for the Product Key - that 25 digit arrangement that determines whether or not Santa will scratch you from his next Christmas list because you've been naughty and used non-genuine material. No problems. I was using the original disc supplied by the manufacturer (Dell) and they had attached the product key details to the base of the computer. I carefully copied the figures and then input it. Back came the message "The Product ID you entered is not valid".

After several such attempts I then took out several other copies of XP (all carefully stored in their original packages) for other computers in the house and tried their codes. Same message.

At this point decided I was obviously doing something wrong so I emailed Microsoft explaining the situation and asking for suggestions. Back came a response from their Michael Chong asking me to repeat the information I had already given and he suggested that I phone their service line. So I phoned.

Mistake.

The woman with whom I spoke (and who, I am sure, was the same woman who previously had told me I was using illegal material because "Microsoft never made an XP Office") now told me that the problem was not Microsoft's - it was Dell's and that she couldn't help me and, in addition, that I was using a non-genuine disc! Microsoft and I will, I am sure, have further discussions about this and Dell may want to have a chat with them, too!

I then phoned a local Computer Repair person. He asked 3 questions, made 1 suggestion, and the problem was resolved. I was doing something wrong. It was a simple error. In less than 5 minutes things were working and there was no charge. All done over the phone.

In thinking about this, the examples of "Loose Lips Sink Ships" and "Who Killed the Sale" came to mind. This "service" person at Microsoft has harmed her employer. She has created in me the belief that Microsoft don't give a S**##@ about their customers and she has implied that a reputable hardware manufacturer has acted improperly.

As have said before, this is a leadership issue.

There is something in the culture at Microsoft that either models the approach taken by this service person or the training that she has been given is focused on the wrong thing. There may even be a situation of cognitive dissonance in which she is told that "service" is important but other metrics by which she is assessed indicate that that she must get rid of me in X seconds so that she can deal with another person's issues. Under that scenario she is unable to listen to my issue in any other way than with the intent of moving me on as fast as possible - "packaged answers" are the only response.

It set me thinking.

What cultural issues in your organisation damage your reputation? Are there support area issues that adversely impact on how you are perceived by your customers / clients? What are you doing to check about this? What are you going to do in order to correct it?

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

It can be argued that over the centuries— to the end of the 20th century—society has moved from tribal to feudal to managerial. The 21st Century has seen the managerial mindset come crashing down. We may have talked about leadership and teams in the later 20th century but our organisational and societal structures remained largely the same as they were 30 years before—hierarchical power structures in which the few controlled the many.

Today it is clear that things must change. The global financial crisis was caused by people who were interested primarily in themselves—and they continue to oppose anything that might threaten their vested interests in power and money. Yet the continual move to “outsourcing” or “contract labour” in which one person might actually work for several organisations simultaneously or, serially, may have 30 or more “employers” over their working life, makes it clear that the old order, if not actually dead, is certainly terminal.

This is the age of the virtual organisation. This is the age in which young people are saying “if the job doesn’t engage me, I’ll go elsewhere”; “if the boss tries to get ‘heavy’, I’ll suggest ‘sex and travel’ and then move on.” There is a rebellion against power structures and the immediate availability of knowledge and data by such media as the internet means that even the last resort of power—information– is less available to those in authority than ever before.

People are demanding to be treated as individuals; to be treated with respect. The organisations that fail to recognise this—be they educational, government, business, religious, social, or whatever—are doomed to extinction.

The 21st century requires leadership—and leadership requires behaviours that are securely based on the foundation of unconditional respect.

There are many who will oppose this shift. We will see from these increasingly toxic behaviour that resorts to some form of fundamentalism—a demand that people submit to a supreme authority and do whatever is demanded in order to placate that authority. And we will see this eventually destroy itself.

There are others who will embrace the new world order. These are the ones who have a future. These are the ones who will make the future. These are the ones who will bequeath to their children and grandchildren a better world.

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

Tomorrow's leaders will act differently

I am old enough to remember when we had to use punch cards in order to use a computer. (And as a student I remember the trauma associated with dropping a pile of punch cards on the way to the card reading machine!) On these cards there was the injunction “Do not spike, bend, fold or mutilate”. The message was that every card was unique—it had its own particular message encoded upon it and anything that might affect this coding would result in error messages and computing problems.

It seems to me that we need to hear that message again when it comes to dealing with people.

A negative mark of recent years is that we have moved from living in societies to living in economies. In other words, we have moved from living in a world where relationships are important to a world where what happens to and with people is considered secondary to the economic factors surrounding the organization, area, or country.

In a society where the influx of information and the speed of change is increasing at almost an exponential rate, the need for people to receive consideration as individuals in their own right is more important than ever before. Unfortunately, for too many of them, they are grouped in socio-economic categories—and we wonder why we have problems.

Tomorrow’s organisations will need different leaders.

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