The Issue of Corruption

At the end of 2013, on the completion of a very “hands-on” workshop on values, ethics and competitive advantage, a senior level manager working outside of Australia came up to me and commented that, until working through this program, he had never believed that you could be totally ethical and also competitively successful.

I was shocked. This person came from a European country that has a reputation for highly ethical behaviour yet, as on-going discussion then ascertained, he had discovered that hidden behind this national façade of respectability lay some degree of a “whatever it takes” mentality and practices.

Over the days of this workshop we had explored media reports of unethical (and probably corrupt) behaviour by Australian and other companies operating internationally and, using a framework of duties and consequences, had explored both the legal and ethical issues involved in running successful international operations – especially the matter of using professional advisors to find “acceptable” ways of circumnavigating national and international laws on bribery and corruption. 

One of the biggest learnings was the reminder that it always “takes two to tango”. In other words unethical and corrupt behaviour exists because both parties see it as an acceptable way (and cost) of doing business: both parties have at least an implicit (and sometimes explicit) understanding that the end justifies the means.

Throughout the workshop, participants had explored what happens in their own company and this lead to considering how the mindset of “the end justifies the means” had come about. Their conclusions were:

1. The Board and top management give confusing signals. On the one hand they speak of the need to behave ethically and appropriately but on the other hand they encourage a “pushing of the boundaries” in order to achieve desired results and, unless some negative consequence (such as bad publicity or some third party investigation) follows questionable behaviour, generally a “blind eye” is turned. In addition, at a very senior level, much time and money is spent on seeking legal ways for complying with what is considered to be “the way of doing business” in some countries.
2. The value statement of the company is seen as a “feel good” set of ideals rather than the drivers of behaviour. They are couched in such broad terms that anyone with a reasonable level of debating skills can use them to justify almost any behaviour.
3. An excessive focus on short-term results such as quarterly reports and employee bonus schemes rather than a more balanced short-term – long-term emphasis.

Right now a high-level team has been established so that these conclusions are being addressed across the company. It will be interesting to see what changes emerge in the coming months.

In the February 12, 2014 edition of “Knowledge at Wharton” (a publication of Wharton Business School in Pennsylvania, USA) there was an interesting article that reflected the fact that questionable behaviour exists not only in the organisation with which I was working, but can be found across the board (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/managerial-myopia-ceos-pump-earnings-gain/) – even when the desired results of such behaviour never eventuate!

How is the probability of unethical and/or corrupt behaviour in your organisation minimised? I'd love to know. Please use the comment section below to let us all know.

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

Committed to the job?

Last November Gower publishing commissioned me to write a follow up to "Third Generation Leadership and the Locus of Control". Although Third Generation Leadership had only been released in September 2012, the interest in it was sufficient for them to want a "how to" book that showed Third Generation Leadership in action. For the last few months I've been totally engrossed in the new book because I had an end of January deadline if it was to be released this year. I've now sent it to them!

Third Generation Leadership is all about harnessing the energies of people so that they become engaged with their leaders and committed to helping their organisation achieve desired results. I chose to centre the new work around an Australian manufacturing operation of around 350 people (mixture of full-time, part-time, and casual) that, when I first became involved, had a turnover of around $55 million for earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) of $1 million and was considering moving its operations off shore in order to remain viable. Two years later, while remaining in Australia and without reducing staff levels or impacting negatively on any entitlements, the company had a turnover of around $70 million for an EBIT of around $11 million. The change had come about by harnessing everyone's energies and creating an environment where people wanted to help the company succeed - they had become engaged with their leaders (and each other) and committed to their company.

While I was working on the book it was sad to see a number of well-known Australian companies continuing a different approach - the traditional one of getting rid of staff in order to improve profitability. Most of the companies that I have observed taking this route are companies that have spoken frequently of the need for employee engagement and commitment. There's a bit of a disconnect here! It started me wondering about whether engagement and commitment really exists across organisations and, if it does, where in the organisation is one most likely to find engagement and commitment and, related to this, to what are most people really committed in the workplace. In answering these questions it seems to me that there are several myths that need to be addressed.

Myth 1 - High pay brings engagement and commitment:
There is a simplistic view that providing very high remuneration packages to CEO's and executives will bring about the level of engagement and commitment necessary to achieve high profitability - those receiving this money will demonstrate high productivity and ensure the success of the company. This is supported by a 2011 study from the University of South Carolina which found a positive correlation between executive remuneration and organisational performance as measured by return on equity. (http://astonjournals.com/manuscripts/Vol2011/BEJ-31_Vol2011.pdf ) However another study - done in Australia - considered return on equity, share price change, and change in earnings per share. This study concluded that there was no positive link between high executive pay and company performance - in fact they concluded that ultimately high executive pay levels actually coincides with a lower bottom line. (http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/intranet/libpages.nsf/WebFiles/Hot+Topics+-+Shields+report+Executive+salaries/$FILE/Buck+stops+here.pdf)     

If very high levels of remuneration really do provide high levels of engagement, commitment, productivity and success then why do we find resistance to increasing the remuneration of those at the lower echelons of organisations? If it works for those at the top, why don't the same principles apply for everyone else? After all, without the people at the lower echelons there would be nothing for those at the top - and vice versa - there is a symbiotic relationship between organisational levels. The truth is that high remuneration eventually becomes an end in itself - a status symbol - and that indicates commitment to oneself - not to one's organisation and its long term viability.

Myth 2 -  "Strong" leadership will engender commitment:
There was a time when we didn't talk of 'leadership" as such. Until relatively recently we recognised command and control for what it was and accepted that one's place in the hierarchy determined what say one had in how an organisation was run - we called it "command" and/or "management" and it worked very well. Today we seem to speak almost exclusively of "leadership" yet, in many cases, we are not talking about inspiring people to move forward nor to creating an environment in which everyone can be successful - instead we are really still talking about command and control. Those who exercise this are regaled as "strong" leaders despite the fact that such an approach almost always degenerates into power and control games such as we see daily in politics, business, sport, religion, domestic relations, etc.

The truth is that "strong" leadership discourages true engagement and commitment. "Strong" leadership brings about a situation in which people obey or conform primarily out of fear. In such environments creativity and innovation drop because no-one wants to "rock the boat" - and certainly no-one is prepared to tell the boss that he or she is wrong - even when this is patently obvious.


The organisation that moved from $1million to $11million EBIT in 2 years used a different approach. There the Board and executive worked with their people and that transformed everything.

What has been your experience?

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

Pondering on Paranoia

There's an old joke that goes something along the lines of; "I'm not paranoid. I just think everyone's out to get me!"

I thought of this when I saw recently that the Australian Security Services and Police want to have legislation forcing all Australian telephone and internet usage to be retained for two years so that these records are available if and when the authorities want to have access to them. The argument is that technology today makes it relatively easy for those with criminal intent to communicate in ways that make it increasingly difficult for the authorities to keep track of what is going on. In turn this makes the task of safekeeping Australia and Australians more difficult.

Ever since the events of 9/11 we have seen knee-jerk reactions to the issues of security and policing. The fear of possible terrorist attacks has been used to introduce legislation that subverts long-held and immensely valuable principles such as individual rights to privacy and to free association, the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, habeas corpus, and a transparent legal process. Today in most of the western world - certainly in the USA, Great Britain, and Australia - we have legislation similar to that which traditionally has been used only by totalitarian or potentially totalitarian regimes. This has lead to activities by our Police and Security Services today which, in an earlier time such as the Cold War period, we in the west rightly condemned.

Those supporting this shift argue that, for those with nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. Of course, in theory, they are right. However taking such a stance is really to consider the issue from a simplistic perspective. It is based on the premises that those in authority will always act in ways that are totally ethical and that they will always observe strict probity - and such premises are palpably false as is shown regularly by the all-too-frequent investigations into corruption and unethical behaviour of those in positions of trust.

Some years ago I was appointed a Justice of the Peace in Victoria and, subsequent to that, I sat on the Bench at two local Magistrate's Courts in Melbourne. Prior to sitting on the Bench all of us being commissioned were sworn by the Chief justice of Victoria. During this swearing-in ceremony as an Honorary Justice at the Supreme Court in Melbourne the Chief Justice of Victoria reminded those of us being sworn that, as persons now empowered to fix bail for accused persons, to sentence guilty people to periods of imprisonment and/or to impose monetary penalties, to authorise search warrants, to issue arrest warrants, and perform other activities involved in the legal process we had to ensure that we did not abuse our powers nor allow others to abuse the legal system – the rights of all people were to be respected in the administration of justice.

Criminal activity - including terrorism - is always wrong. But there are serious dangers in allowing untrammelled access to private conversations and legal activities and even more serious dangers in allowing basic legal rights to be removed. And activities which hide behind the screen of "in the national interest" so as to avoid any form of judicial or public investigation are the most dangerous of all. These, as the past has tragically taught us, always contain within them the potential for totalitarianism to emerge.

There is a balance required. However moving further along the path envisaged by George Orwell's "1984" is far from the way we ought to be moving.

Many years ago, Pastor Martin Niemöller in Germany wrote a well known piece lamenting indifference to abuses and atrocities conducted in Nazi Germany. He spoke of general indifference and inaction regarding Nazi treatment of the Jews, Communists, and Trade Unionists before concluding:

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Unless we see some real leadership that challenges current political and security agendas, then I am very worried that Niemöller’s words from yesterday may well be our epitaph tomorrow.

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

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

Still more about PPM!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PPM issue!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poor Management = Disengaged Staff = Lower Profits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customer Service

Quite a long time ago I listed an article on EvanCarmichael.com entitled “Cracked Eggs Don’t Hatch” in which I talked about my customer service experience with Dell computers. Over the last 3 days I have had more interesting customer service experiences about which to talk.

First:

Last Saturday my son bought a new bed from an organisation in Penrith, Sydney, named “Fantastic Furniture”. When he got it home he undid the packaging and was dismayed to find that there was evidence that the unit may have been used as a showroom display and that there had been some damage which had been badly repaired. Now had he bought this as an ex-showroom item this would not have been an issue – he would have accepted that things can get damaged in a showroom and that the reduction in price would have taken account of this. But this wasn’t bought as ex-floor stock!

My son phoned the store and spoke with Trevor, the manager. The response was immediate. There was no argument or request for additional justification. The manager accepted my son was not happy and that the item was damaged. He said the item will be replaced. Today they are delivering a new bed and taking the other one away even though they have to come over 40 km to reach our house. Now that’s customer service – “Fantastic Service from Fantastic Furniture” is how my son described it.

Second:

A few weeks ago I got new front tyres for my car from an organisation called JAXQuickfit Tyres in Thornleigh, Sydney. This morning I heard some noise from the brakes and, because I enjoy servicing my car, I decided to check the discs. On each of the front wheels, all the wheel nuts came off easily except 1 on each side – one stud snapped on each front wheel. Now I have been working on my cars for over 50 years and in that time I have undone and done up countless wheel nuts – I’ve never before had a stud snap. Today I get two – one on each wheel that had recently had a tyre replaced by JAX. I phoned them and explained the coincidence to Mark, the manager. There was no hesitation. “We’ll fix it for you,” he said. “We’ll need the car for about an hour.”

Thank you Mr JAXQuickfit Tyres in Thornleigh.

The thing that saddens me is that service such as this is, all too often, the exception rather than the rule. It shouldn't have to be that way - and it doesn't have to be.



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

A healthy organisation?

When I work with any organisation, I divide my attention into the 5 areas that determine health and sustainability and, among others, I ask the following questions:

1. Knowledge. How clear and focused are the vision, purpose, and objectives/goals of the organisation (both qualitative and quantitative) and how well are these known and understood throughout the organisation?

2. Strategy. In broad terms, how does the organisation intend to make its vision a reality – to attain its objectives/goals.

3. Non Human Resources. Does the organisation have the right resources to operate affectively and how does it ensure that the right resources are available at the right time and in the right place for the right people?

4. Structure. What is the decision making process? What is the lowest level in the organisation where decisions can be made and what are the repercussions of making the wrong decisions? What is the decision making environment within which the Executive Team operates?

5. Human Process. What are the labour turnover figures and how do these compare with your targeted turnover rate as set out in your business plan? What are you doing about any discrepancy? What are your recruitment processes and how could these be improved? How do you develop and maintain the requisite level of competence at all levels of personnel and how could this be done better? What process do you use to monitor customer/client satisfaction and how could this process be improved? How do you monitor the external environment that will or could impact on the organisation and what use do you make of this information? What is your relationship with the various trade unions / professional bodies that are represented in your organisation and how could these be improved? What process is used to get on-going, real time feedback from personnel on issues and concerns?

Providing cash flow is positive, these are the areas that will determine whether or not an organisation is healthy. Answering these questions will highlight possible “ouch” points that need to be addressed.

More information is at http://www.dglong.com

A Battle for the Mind

“If you believe you can,

or

if you believe you can’t …

Either way you are right!”

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

It is, of course, very true.

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

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

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

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

Third Generation Leadership operates in a different mind space.

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

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

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

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

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

There's no leadership to be seen yet

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

 

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

 

This message seems lost to both parties at the moment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Leaders and Threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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