Stop the PPM NOW!

So the Australian Federal Parliament has gone into the winter recess without resolving the issue of desperate people trying to get a better life - refugees - by risking their lives on inadequate boats. I have no doubt that, despite the shows of emotion during the debates, we will now be regaled by blame apportioning - each side will blame the other for its intransigence and, no matter what the rhetoric, all will try to make political capital out of the fiasco and tragedy.

Our politicians are showing themselves exemplars of PPM - Piss Poor Management. They say that political points should not be made out of this. They claim to be interested in and concerned about the refugees. Then go and continue their puerile facade of blaming each other for a failure to stop the boats coming. Their behaviour belies their words. Their behaviour makes it clear that they don't give a damn about the refugees - they are interested only in their own political stance and the possibility of retaining or obtaining power. This applies to all the political parties in our Federal Parliament.

Like many others, I've had enough of the negativism from the Coalition opposition. I've had enough of the resolute refusal to consider any view but their own from the Greens. And I've had enough of the "do it my way" from the Labor government. And I've more than had enough of the rambling rhetoric of the radio and news media shock jocks who foster extremist views through their commentary on the refugees themselves and on any attempt to take a truly humanitarian stance in dealing with them. And I am totally fed up with the demonising of refugees coming by boat when, in reality, they comprise only a small proportion of the illegal migrants in Australia who have arrived legally, mainly by air, and then overstayed their visas.

It is not an offence to be a refugee. It is not an offence to flee from perceived persecution. It is not an offence to be so desperate that you get on an unseaworthy vessel, travel huge distances, and endure untold hardship in order to find a better life for yourself and your family.

After World War II we took in huge numbers of refugees from Europe. Some of what, today, are our most successful business operations were founded from amongst these numbers. After the Vietnam War we took in thousands of refugees. Today many of these are making their mark as valuable contributors to our society. What's different with these new people?

Part of the reason they are refugees is that we have helped destroy their homelands. We invaded Iraq on a lie; we invaded Afghanistan on a pretext; we are complicit in terrorising people in Pakistan's border areas through the use of drones that kill the innocent along with the possibly guilty. We rightly mourn the deaths of our own solidiers in these conflicts; we are rightly concerned at the physical and emotional injuries suffered by our soldiers in these conflicts - but what about the innocent victims - the "collateral damage" -in these countries. This is the source of the refugees. We share a significant proportion of the blame for their condition because we have contributed to their plight.

I understand that true leadership is a foreign concept to our politicians, but, just for once, it would be great to see them look at the really big picture then do the right thing - place genuine concern for these refugees that we have helped create ahead of their petty political posturing. Until they do that then the task given to former defence chief, Angus Houston, is the ultimate act of cynicism (and that's no reflection on Angus Houston - its just that he's not being set up for success.)

People are dying while politicians play games. That's Piss Poor Management at its worst.

Our politicians need to stop this PPM now.

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

"nato" Leaders

Some years ago I was speaking at a conference in Finland. In the discussion period that followed one member of the audience said "You have described problems with leadership very accurately. These problems are most often seen in nato (No Action Talk Only) leaders. These are the people who are quick to criticise, happy to utter platitudes, very full of themselves, but utterly useless when it comes to getting something done." Looking around it seems to me that this pseudo nato group is very much alive and well.

I thought of that when I was speaking with a political leader recently. Despite his party being elected with a very strong majority, virtually everything has been referred to a committee and the response to questioners is along the lines of "we're looking into it". Not only does this person appear to be a nato leader but it looks like its a "nato" leader meets Through the Looking Glass" scenario.

Now I have no opinion as to the leadership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (the "real" NATO) because, in part, living in the antipodes means that we are outside its influence. But I do have an opinion of the No Action Talk Only group (the pseudo nato) who purport to be leaders. My opinion is not positive and it extends to virtually all political leaders (no matter what their flavour); to those who conduct and/or focus on weekly (or other far-too-frequent) political opinion polls; to radio "shock jocks"; and to many of the analysts who prognosticate on what profits should be expected from public companies and who. by so doing, encourage a focus on short term results rather than long term issues.

Frankly I'm tired of low-profile, emphasise-the-negative politics designed to get some person or party into positions of power - and this politicking occurs just as much in large organisations as it does in the overtly political arena. Its not real leadership and its not real management - it is evidence that the scourge of PPM (Piss Poor Management) permeates to even the highest positions around.

Why do we have so much bullying, violence, and significant degrees of anti social behaviour? I suggest because all-too-often it is modeled by our political "leaders", by radio "shock jocks", by one-eyed opinion pieces in newspapers, and the like. The people responsible seem to think that only their opinion or cause is "right" or "just" and they seem to feel free to demean and attack those with different views or opinions. This isn't leadership - its bullying and should be labelled as such. We cannot seek to confront bullying in the school ground, in the work place, on the web, or anywhere else until we have confronted it in our "leaders".

We need leaders of substance. These leaders are those who have robust discussions and debates without total negativity, ego trips, or demeaning others. These leaders will acknowledge both their own weaknesses and the strengths of others. These leaders will seek the best for all followers even when this comes from others. These leaders will seek to act in a way that is best for all rather than just for themselves or their ideology. These leaders will inspire us with a vision and they will set out this vision in a way that makes us all want to work together in order to make it a reality. Where these leaders see something they believe is wrong, they will develop and offer positive alternatives and they will show how these alternatives can be implemented. When given the opportunity, they will act to bring about the better future about which they have been talking. These leaders are truly authentic and are people worth following.

Let's get rid of "nato" leaders. Lets get rid of bullying.

More about Doug 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

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

You've got to love those skinks!

The skink was back on Sunday.

Well, I'm not really sure if it was the same skink about which I wrote a week or so back, but there certainly was a skink back in the kitchen - and the cat was still around.

For those of you not familiar with Australian fauna, the common garden skink (Lampropholis guichenoti) is found virtually everywhere in South East Australia. It has a smooth dark greyish body with a dark stripe running along each side - a very beautiful creature that is totally harmless, good for the garden, and enjoys sunning itself on rocks and ledges. From tip of nose to end of tail the ones around here seem to be about 18 cm (about 7 inches) long.

But we seem to have a skink with a penchant for danger - or one that knows that there is a short cut between the front and back gardens if one goes through the house! The cat was sleeping near the door when the skink arrived on the porch, paused, looked at the cat, then scurried inside close to where I was reading a newspaper. There were a few moments of activity then, safely caught in a bag, the skink was removed and released into the front garden.

Now I know that skinks can't think rationally (and probably can't really think at all) but I had to wonder why a creature with no defence mechanisms other than flight or freeze would stray into the path of danger (the cat) and away from an environment in which it can find plenty of places to safely hide. And that got me thinking about the behaviour of people. How often do we act without thinking (virtually operating on 'auto pilot') and put ourselves and others in some form of danger?

We all see it every day. Someone puts an item on the stove (or a bench, or a table), close to the edge and with a handle sticking out in such a way that it could be easily bumped and dislodged; someone listens to music or talks on their phone whilst walking along a street totally oblivious to other people, traffic, or immoveable objects; people remove children and/or items from their car using the door that juts out into the traffic flow endangering both themselves and that which they are moving and passing traffic; people in shops block an entire aisle with their shopping basket or while chatting with a friend; and so on. There are myriad everyday examples, with which we are all aware, of unthinking risky behaviour. People operating on auto pilot with no manual override apparently present!

We all have 2 minds - a childlike mind that operates without thinking and an adult mind that is capable of rational thought, of planning, of "thinking outside the square", and generally enabling us to be creative, exciting people who are aware of others and our surroundings and who seek to operate safely and successfully without endangering ourselves or others. A childlike mind is totally acceptable in a child - in fact it is one of the endearing factors of children - but its not the best mind from which to operate when we're grown up.

You can shift your brain's control to the adult mind. Its not all that hard - all you've got to do is to access something that is already there; that you use frequently; and make it your default way of thinking and acting. There's some more information about how you can do this on http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/summary.php

Why not let me know what you think? You can place your comments below.

More about Doug Long on 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

Is "customer service" an oxymoron?

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

You got it!

Optus suck at communicating - at least with me.

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

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

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

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

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

Its not rocket science.

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

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

What do you think?

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

Why I like Gen Y

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

• legitimate
• effective
• efficient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return on Investment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leaders look around

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

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

Think about it.

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

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

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

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

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

"Blue Zone" cares!

Last week my son purchased a 4WD vehicle and, over the weekend, went out bush with his mates. The group took several 4WD's and they are experienced 4WDers. This was serious "bush bashing" in an authorised area and they put themselves and their vehicles through some pretty testing stuff. The end result, fortunately just as they were about to come home, was that the clutch failed on my son's Nissan. It was interesting to be told of how the whole group worked together to get his car back to Sydney and to his workshop (as it happens most of them are mechanics): it has been equally interesting to hear how everyone is now helping him get the car fully repaired and back on the road in the shortest possible time.

They call it "helping your mates".

Also over the weekend we all heard of the disaster in Haiti. Again it is heartening to see the worldwide response of people seeking to provide help of all sorts to those who are in desperate need.

Some call this emergency international aid.

It doesn't really matter what you call it. Nor does it matter whether we are talking about a small group of friends working together or an international response to a disaster. The fact is that, for the most part, people are prepared to help others - even when there are significant costs to themselves. Its one of the really great things about humanity and it is totally independent of any religious, racial, cultural, or other perspective. We do it because we are human.

In another arena (http://www.evancarmichael.com/Leadership/5178/summary.php) I have talked about the areas of our brains that control how we see the world and how we respond to the various issues that confront us on a daily basis. I have also referred to this in a previous blog (Leaders and the Brain). In both of these, as well as in The Success Zone (2009, Mowat, Corrigan, Long, Global Publishing Group, Melbourne: http://www.thesuccesszone.com) I have talked about "red zone" areas of brain control as opposed to "blue zone" areas of brain control. Being "human" - caring about people and trying to find appropriate solutions when disasters strike is a blue zone activity.

Wouldn't it be great if we all had much more "blue zone" control in our lives?

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

Christmas Greetings

Christmas eve! Where has the year gone?

Leadership has been an interesting study in 2009. I've observed lots of management, lots of manipulation, lots of the seeking and using of power and authority, lots of posturing, lots of politics: very little leadership. I see in this morning's papers that the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney says we are too hard on our political "leaders". I don't think we're hard enough on any of them whether they are political, religious, business, or societal. The result is that we get the leadership we deserve - largely operating in the 'red zone' (see http://www.thesuccesszone.com) rather than the 'blue zone'.

The Copenhagen Climate Conference is a case in point. Most people there were more concerned about the medium term impacts on their economies by any firm targets rather than on the good of our planet and what we will bequeath to our grandchildren's grandchildren. Talk about "the sins of the fathers.."

But Christmas is the time for peace and goodwill so I'll stop critiquing.

Thank you for reading my blogs. A special thanks to those of you who have taken the trouble to contact me directly to talk about things I have said.

I wish you a very merry Christmas and a wonderful 2010.

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

The Right Thing

The Copenhagen Climate Conference is now over and a predictable outcome - ie no real agreement - is the result. As is to be expected, both those who want action on climate change and those who oppose it are leveraging from the result to bolster their position.

Its a real dilemma for national leaders. On the one hand there is abundant evidence of climate change - the huge snow storms in the USA and Europe are not in accord with established weather patterns; glaciers are melting in the Arctic and Antarctic; droughts and fires continue to ravage Australia. On the other hand debate rages as to whether these changes are caused by human action through such issues as CO2 emission and the argument is made that countries will suffer economic problems if industries are forced to change established habits. Do our national leaders pay attention to long term environmental issues or shorter term economic issues?

A few years ago Professor Warren Bennis, a leading leadership researcher and writer, said; "Managers do things right: Leaders do the right thing." His argument was that sometimes leaders need to be prepared to break the rules in order to bring about the desired future.

Elliot Jacques (Requisite Organization, 1998, Cason, Hall & Co, VA) talks about the need for people at different levels of organisations to have increasing degrees of competence to handle complexity. He argues that people with responsibility for major organisations with very complex goals and strategies need to be able to deal with potential issues some 50 years hence. He makes the point that many problems arise because people making decisions do not have the competence to deal with the levels of complexity involved - in that case they over simplify or opt for the status quo because they are out of their depth even if they are not aware of it. Other researchers, Don Beck and Chris Cowan (Spiral Dynamics, 1996, Blackwell Publishers, inc) make a similar point when they argue that most of today's problems arose from yesterday's decisions.

I want a world for my grandchildren and their grandchildren that is even better than the one in which we live today. I am concerned that our "leaders" - political, business, religious, social - all too often are unable to deal with the levels of complexity they encounter.

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

Values and the Leader

Last week I spent several hours with a person who is feeling very frustrated. He was running a very successful business but, in February last year, two key customers started experiencing difficulties - suddenly revenues dropped significantly. Initially he thought this was a minor hiccup but then the global financial crisis hit and, almost over night, other of his customers were also affected.

My friend has a value set which believes that you should look after the people who work for you and, when this issue first erupted, he had 14 people employed. After a few weeks he realised that, in the short term, revenues were not going to grow back to even close to where they had been (and forget profitability!) so he sat with his people, gave them the facts, and asked for suggestions as to the way forward. He made it very clear that dismissals were an option but not one that he wanted to take. A range of solutions were suggested and implemented and no-one was laid off.

Unfortunately things haven't yet improved. Customers are buying the bare minimums they need and crunch time has come. He is grappling with taking actions that will ensure his survival but which will hurt people about whom he cares and who have given him years of service. How can he reconcile his concern for his family with concern for his employees - all of whom he also considers to be friends.

Sometimes leaders are confronted by situations which challenge their values. They find that values which they thought were very simple are actually conflicting - as is the case with my friend. Like many people I know, my friend had never before confronted the question of his core values - he simply took them as granted and thought that everything would work out ok.

Right now we're going through the exercise of really understanding and enunciating both "what are the values?" and "what does this mean in practical everyday behaviours?"

When did you last really think about your values and how they impact on behaviour whether it is at work, in the home, or in your social life? What happens when there's a clash and survival becomes an issue?

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

Authentic Leadership

On Saturday November 21, The Australian newspaper ran an article by General (rtd) Peter Cosgrove entitled "Leaders know dream teams have an ethos". In this Cosgrove mentioned leaders who have had 'falls from grace' and stated: 'In the main the issues behind these falls could be grouped under a lack of competence, a lack of support from those they sought to lead and a lack or failure of integrity'.

During the early 1990's I conducted extensive research on leadership in the Asia-Pacific region (see The Challenge of the Diamond and/or Leaders: diamonds or cubic zirconia) and found that integrity featured as one of the absolute key requirements for effective leadership. In my books I made the point that one of the major issues we all have with so-called "leaders" is a disconnect between what they say and what they do - ie a failure to "walk the talk" is generally seen as a lack of integrity. All too often we find one standard being espoused for followers and another standard being used by leaders.

What concerns me today is an apparent lack of integrity in many quarters. There are myriad everyday small examples, but here are a few major ones drawn from various media reports:

• A leader of a major investment bank, in justifying his salary and bonuses despite the gfc, claims that he is "doing God's s work".
• World leaders claim to believe in democracy yet refuse to accept or negotiate with regimes that are acknowledged to have been democratically elected because the election results are different from what was predicted or hoped - and then go on to demonise the elected parties when they object!
• Leaders claim to believe in the sanctity of human life yet justify the deaths of civilians as 'collateral damage' in wars they have initiated.
• Leaders decry the War Crimes committed in places like Bosnia and correctly argue that the perpetrators deserve to be tried in appropriate Courts and, if found guilty, should receive appropriate penalties yet refuse either to investigate possible War Crimes committed by their own personnel or else argue that offences such as torture are simply 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and that they are therefore exempt.

A few years ago I was coaching a leader aged in the mid 40's. As we worked through some issues, there was a deep pause, and then my coachee made the statement: "I've just realised that I've never been truly authentic in my life. I have always done what was expected of me by other people. No wonder people are saying that I lack integrity!"

Today we need authentic leaders - leaders who are absolutely true to themselves and the people they serve. Cosgrove is right: authentic leadership requires integrity.

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

Re-creating leaders and organisations - not a "phoenix"

A few weeks ago we lost our older and much loved Belgian Shepherd to cancer. It was the second time cancer has hit our family or pets. In talking with friends, virtually everyone I know has been affected by cancer in a family member or a pet or, like us, in both.

I am not an oncologist and I have no real knowledge of oncology but, from a recent TV documentary, I understand that at least some cancer cells are normal body cells that refuse to die when they should. Instead of allowing natural events to take their course, these are cells that become feral and so create problems.

Some people have asked me whether a re-created organisation is the same as a phoenix organisation. The answer is a resounding "NO!"

A phoenix organisation, at least in Australia, is one in which the owners have run the organisation in such a way that it eventually fails and, while the owners do very nicely, the organisation's creditors lose out totally. In the meantime the owners "laugh all the way to the bank". Once the washing up is completed, the owners start a new business in the same industry - very often from the same premises - and repeat the cycle. Only the name is different. To my mind this phoenix approach is malignant and akin to the cells that create cancer.

A re-created organisation is totally different.

Outside my window is a magnificent bougainvillea. Now, in the spring, it is bursting with colour but only a few weeks ago it was a barren cluster of grey-brown twigs and branches. it had been alive all winter but had nothing to show for any effort the plant may have been making - it was in survival mode.

This provides a metaphor for the re-created organisation.

A re-created organisation is a basically healthy organisation that needs to rethink what it is doing and how it does it. It is an organisation that has, in effect, been dormant for some time - lots of effort but no results - and is now seeking a new way forward.

What I love most about re-creating leaders and organisations is that I can bring them out of winter and into spring.

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

Socially Responsible Leadership

As I write this there are 78 Sri Lankan asylum seekers stranded off the coast of Indonesia on an Australian Customs vessel. Both the Government and the Opposition in Australia are seeking political mileage by "being tough" on those who seek to jump the immigration and refugee queue. Once again blame is foisted upon the refugees rather than on the events and leadership which made them flee their homeland.

The media this week report that interest rates in Australia are almost certain to rise when the Reserve Bank meets next week. The only question relates to the extent of the rise and little is said about how financial institutions will use this to enhance profits. In the same media we learn that housing prices are again rising rapidly and making the dream of owning your own home even more difficult for many people. No-one is prepared to take responsibility for increasing the pressure on, primarily, low income earners and first home buyers.

Last week we learned that the global financial crisis had created a loss of some $160 million to the Anglican Archdiocese of Sydney - apparently the church invested using margin loans - and as a result they will need to cut back on help it gives to people. The Archbishop commented that perhaps God was trying to tell the church something but he fell short of accepting blame for the loss.

Three social issues.

Common to all of them is that leaders are caught up in events over which they now have little or no control. Also common to all of them is an apparent reluctance (if not refusal) of leaders to accept any responsibility or liability even though they could have had significant influence at very early stages.

There are three aspects to leadership - the intent, the strategy, and the execution.

Ideally the intent of leadership ought to be to create an environment in which every person can be successful - ie can lead a productive life free of such issues as starvation, violence, and discrimination. The specifics of strategy and execution - ie 'how' this is done together with the attitudes and behaviours of the leaders - will always be both culturally and organisationally specific. But the intent should remain constant because such an intent makes it possible to be economically responsible simultaneously with being socially responsible - its not an 'either/or'.

It seems to me that unfortunately many of those in politics, business, and religious groups seem to have lost sight of this.

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

The re-creating organisation

One of the things I love about the Australian bush is its ability to regenerate.

We can have the most devastating bush fires yet, come the next significant rain, buds start emerging from the blackened stumps and, within a very short time, the bush is back. I thought about this today as I watched rain fall in Sydney.

If the pundits are to be believed, then we appear to be emerging from the global financial crisis that erupted a year or so back. Since the GFC I have watched people lose their businesses, their jobs, their homes and, in some cases, their families. I know two instances of suicides because of an inability to cope with the financial and social impact of what had happened.

Organisations that depend on donations for significant portions of their funding have also been hard hit – sure we have found money for special appeals like last year’s bush fires in Victoria, but overall funding has, I believe, been well down on what is needed.

If the pundits are right, the time is now ripe for re-creation.

Back in the Fourth Quarter 2008 I wrote about the need to simultaneously plan for the future and deal with the financial problems being faced by many organisations and people. The time may now be right to dust off those plans and consider how they may be implemented. If the economy is on the mend, we are going to need re-created organisations in order to move forward.

Of course, for a re-created organisation to be successful, there is an urgent need for re-created leaders as well.

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