Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts

Friday, December 18, 2020

Leadership: Responsible for All

 

I have written and skirted the issue of leadership during the pandemic. As most of you know I do not believe, based upon the evidence, that the current administration has handled the COVID-19 pandemic, but rather has attempted to distance itself from the mounting tragedy which embodies America's response.

The basis of my assessment is that America has about 4 percent of the world's population and 20 percent of the coronavirus deaths. Distilled down, and not addressing the economic toll, that is the basis for my assessment. The most advanced and capable country in the world has failed by almost every measure to protect not only its population, but its economy. Yes, the stock market is still strong--but that is not a measure of the economic strength.

Leaders own it all! The good, the bad, and the ineffective.

Effective leaders know they are responsible for it all. Really good leaders do not take credit for the successes--they heap thepraise for the successes on their people. They realize that success does not happen without a great team. Take the vaccine deliveries. The drug companies did a great job expediting the production and delivery of the vaccines and they were aided by the government streamlining some regulatory issues. Who should get the credit? The drug companies!

The explosive unemployment, the economic disaster that is the U.S. right now, the quarantines and the isolation, the skyrocketing death rate--who gets the blame? The leader. 

That is how leadership is--it is not a popularity contest and leaders cannot pick and choose what is their responsibility. They are responsible for all of it. Leaders cannot try to separate the vaccine from the death rate because they are all responsible for all of it. 

A good leader accepts when they fall short and stands up and takes the blame for the team and vows to turn it around and do better, not sulking off to a Florida retreat to ride out the pandemic. 

I do not understand how a leader gets a free pass where people heap credit for producing a vaccine--which really he had nothing to do with while failing to protect Americans resulting in the deaths of over 300,000 of our fellow citizens. 

A true leader is responsible for it all. It is tough and maybe not fair--but, it is what came with the job.


-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD


Sunday, September 20, 2020

Rumors, certainty, and inclusiveness



I received an email the other day. It stated that because rumors of change had made it to leadership and to ensure transparency this email is . . . 

The email went on to confirm that potentially significant change is being planned, but the details have not been worked out.

It struck me then that: 

Rumors are the evidence for lack of transparency. 

Now I have also read that in the absence of certainty, rumors flourish.

There must be a way to bring both of these concepts together. 

In the article, Transparency, Certainty and Rumors, Matt Reed, the author, makes the point that one can be transparent but that the lack of certainty becomes the real problem. He writes the following:

Truth is like water. Still water is transparent. Running water isn’t. Right now, we’re in the rapids; the water itself may be transparent, but it’s rushing so fast that it’s hard to see what’s next. Will warm weather hit before the virus explodes, or will the virus explode before warm weather hits? I don’t know.

In the absence of certainty, rumors flourish. Admittedly, some of them are fun; I liked the observation on Twitter that ever since Ted Cruz self-quarantined, there haven’t been any more Zodiac murders. It’s technically true, though perhaps a bit misleading.

I understand his point, but in the description of the situation which caused him to write about certainty I believe that he was not being totally transparent, despite his assertion to the contrary. By not actively providing the information about decisions surrounding closing the college to the workforce instead of having them contact him individually, he turned the running water into swirling rapids through lack of transparency. 

Rumors fill the gap between known and imagined. When leadership fails to keep the workforce, including the subordinate leaders, informed then the resulting rumors can make it hard to implement a great plan before it even gets off the ground. Rumors call into question the leadership intentions before they even get a chance to socialize the reasons for change.

The problem comes when leadership is certain there is going to be a significant change, but because they have not fully characterized the details of the change they withhold the information.


That brings up inclusiveness. Why is significant change planned without including the workforce? That goes against every current leadership principle and hearkens back to the draconian management days of the 60's. 

Including the workforce at the beginning of the change planning is much better for the organization than dropping change on them. Surprise change sows mistrust

And let me add a point--mistrust at the operational and tactical leadership levels of the organization could transform into buy-in through inclusiveness.

Rumors, then, are evidence for lack of transparency. There are additional symptoms to be considered, for instance lack of certainty and inclusiveness--but together with lack of transparency these all point to failed leadership. 


-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Saturday, July 25, 2020

Lead from the Front


Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, right,
stands at a fence guarding a federal courthouse
 as tear gas drifts by
 early July 23, in Portland, Ore. (Karina Brown/AP)
What happened the other night in Portland was a case study in competing leadership styles.

The mayor of Portland, Oregon, was on the front lines of the conflict happening there. 

A Washington Post article describes the incident, 

Wheeler had come to the protest, he said, to stand with protesters in the face of what he has described as an “occupying force” — federal agents who were deployed by President Trump to a city that the president has described as “worse than Afghanistan.” (Amid a tense meeting with protesters, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler tear-gassed by federal agents - The Washington Post)

From the article:

As Wheeler stood at the fence, he was heckled and insulted. Some demonstrators called for his resignation. Others, who had been tear-gassed by the Portland Police Bureau over the past eight weeks, shouted questions at the mayor.

Later in the article:

Wheeler tried to address Trump’s recent pronouncement that he would be sending a surge of federal forces to other Democratic-led American cities to help combat crime, starting with Chicago and Albuquerque, but the crowd shouted him down.

They wanted, instead, to talk about what, exactly, he was doing to get rid of the federal agents and asked about his dual role as mayor and police commissioner. Some shared personal stories of run-ins with the police. Others demanded he consider making sweeping systemic change to policing in Portland.

We can argue about his motives, but the article makes clear that the mayor got an earful from the protestors about the situation. 

In contrast, the president made the following statement about the incident, 

“He made a fool out of himself,” Trump said during an appearance on Fox News. “He wanted to be among the people. So he went into the crowd. And they knocked the hell out of him. That was the end of him. So it was pretty, pretty pathetic.” (Trump derides Portland mayor for joining protesters and getting tear-gassed - The Washington Post)

It is sad that the presumed leader of the free world reveled in the failure of a leader that was attempting to lead from the front rather than hiding in the basement bunker.

We can disagree about motives and results, but a leader should be out walking with and talking to the people about their complaints. It remains to be seen whether the situation in Portland improves. I hope that it does.

Lead from the front!

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

What do you have to lose?


Some of the most frightening words that I have heard uttered from The White House have made the news again.


The phrase, "What do you have to lose?" was again used by the President when he was discussing his daily hydroxychloroquine regimen. 


"What do you have to lose?" Trump said. "OK, what do you have to lose? So, I have been taking it for about a week and a half. Every day at some point, every day. I take a pill every day." As reported on Fox11News. 

Frankly, decisions about courses of action should not be based upon half-baked ideas where the only reason for doing them is "What do you have to lose?"

The answer is simply--your life! You could lose your life!

Further on in the Fox 11 News article, it is reported:
The Food and Drug Administration last month issued a warning that it should only be used in hospitals because of a risk of heart complications. Several studies have also shown the drug has no benefit in treating coronavirus compared to patients who didn’t receive the drug.
In some studies, there were more deaths among patients given the anti-malarial drug than those who received standard care.
Hydroxychloroquine has a known history of serious side effects, including heart rhythm issues, severely low blood pressure and nerve damage.
It appears to me that the stakes can be very high for taking this drug without a good reason and a competent medical guidance. 
I do want to debunk a myth, however, about the President's use of the drug. It was rumored that he could receive substantial financial benefit if the drug was adopted as a standard treatment for COVID-19. I checked Snopes and found that this is mostly untrue. He does own, via some mutual funds, interest in multiple companies which manufacture the drug, hydroxychloroquine, but the holdings are insignificant when compared against his overall wealth. Increasing his personal wealth, then, does not seem to be a viable reason that he is promoting the drug.
So, back to the question, "What do you have to lose?" For the President, perhaps nothing although there are risks for his health, for him that risk may be acceptable. BUT, as a leader who many people follow, sometimes blindly, he could be needlessly putting their health at risk by professing use of a drug with dubious benefits in treating COVID-19 and known and sometimes dire health consequences.  Leaders need to consider their actions and the impact on others. Modeling good and reasonable behaviors are what good leaders are called to do. Leaders lead through conscious decisions and modeling of desirable behaviors.
Making decisions for good reasons and encouraging people to follow is leadership. "What do you have to lose?" does not inspire followership. It creates a conundrum that is the antithesis of leadership.
Another way of looking at it is, What do I have to gain? When do the benefits outweigh the consequences? Good leaders clearly outline the benefits or consequences for following, or not following them. 
"What do you have to lose?" 
The Fox 11 News item contained this sobering statement: In some studies, there were more deaths among patients given the anti-malarial drug than those who received standard care.
Maybe nothing, but then, maybe everything. 

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Friday, May 1, 2020

Good Leaders Model Good Behavior


Interesting things have transpired in the news media over the past week.

One theme which caught my attention was the differing response to creating and following rules about wearing face masks in public. 

Leaders follow rules and provide an example for others to emulate. They reinforce good behavior my modeling that behavior. 

Which brings me to to images that I captured this week. I was careful to choose two Republican leaders so that there can be no thought that I am providing a partisan view of leadership. 

Vice President Pence in the Mayo Clinic
April 28, 2020
For the first exhibit, I have the now infamous image of our Vice President in the Mayo Clinic clearly not following the rules regarding the wearing of face protection while visiting patients. Some leaders are so vain that they will not emulate good behavior. Notice that everyone else is wearing a mask. The explanation for not wearing a mask is not sufficient. According to CNN reporting, here is the Vice President's rationale for not wearing a mask:

"As vice president of the United States I'm tested for the coronavirus on a regular basis, and everyone who is around me is tested for the coronavirus," he said, citing guidelines from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that indicate wearing a mask can prevent those who have the virus from spreading it unwittingly.
"Since I don't have the coronavirus, I thought it'd be a good opportunity for me to be here, to be able to speak to these researchers these incredible health care personnel and look them in the eye and say thank you," he said.

But, as I wrote, wearing a mask in not only about the singular view of the Vice President in this matter, it is about modeling behavior for people to follow. If the Vice President believes that he is exempt from the guidelines and rules, then there will be many others who similarly believe that the rules and guidelines do not apply to them. 

Governor Larry Hogan Walking into a News Conference
April 29, 2020
Turning now to a Republican governor--Larry Hogan of Maryland who holds regular news conferences. Governor Hogan the other day gave a news conference and, as in his previous conferences, he wore a mask. I find it interesting because there is apparently at least six feet of spacing around the participants, but the governor wore a mask with the exception of the time he spent at the podium. 

Leaders lead!

Leaders need to recognize that everything they do is leading their constituents. If they follow rules--they are leading. If they flout the rules--that too is sending a message. 

Good leaders model good behavior.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Sunday, April 5, 2020

Shopping with the New Normal


Me, With My New Mask
At Wegman's, Columbia, MD
April 4, 2020
Making our first trip into the "wild" yesterday, Chris and I visited Wegmans to obtain our two-week supply of food as we hunker down at home. 

We heeded the new guideline to wear masks in public and we also wore gloves to not only protect us from the world, but to protect the world from ourselves. 

With respect to wearing masks, I was distressed at the failure of the president to lead. One of the most important aspects of leadership is to model acceptable behaviors. When the president says that we should wear masks in public, but then goes on to say:  

“I just don’t want to be doing – somehow sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute Desk, the great Resolute Desk, I think wearing a face mask as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings, queens, I don’t know, somehow I don’t see it for myself. Maybe I’ll change my mind, but this will pass, and hopefully it will pass very quickly.” (The Guardian)

That, friends, represents a failure of leadership! Rationalize his statement however you will, the end result is inescapable. Leaders must lead, not make excuses. They are judged by there actions and their results.

line Waiting to get into Wegmans
Columbia, MD
April 4, 2020
So with my new mask on my face, I found that shopping in Wegmans was a totally new experience. There is a line (queue) to enter the store and we waited for about 15 minutes before being allowed inside. Once inside we were directed to a station to wash our hands and sanitize our shopping cart. Everyone practiced social distancing. It was very weird to have people obviously avoiding getting near me like I was infected with the plague--Oh wait, I might be infected, no one knows. 

Sign Directing People to the Checkout Queue
Columbia, MD
April 4, 2020
On the plus side of the new normal equation, walking the aisles on a Saturday was a pleasant experience because the store limited the number of patrons who can enter. Even the check out is different, there is a single line with big dots on the floor designed to help patrons maintain acceptable social distancing. The store needs a dictionary because the cue referenced on the sign never materialized. There was, however, a queue. The wait to get to a register was minimal and I was impressed by the cleaning that is done between each customer. 

The new normal is anything but normal. 

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Friday, July 13, 2018

At Least




I learned a new combination of words yesterday that have a complicated and far more difficult connotation than I realized.

"At least . . . "

The words have two definitions, one is clearly mathematical and the other is for use in a life setting:


if nothing else (used to add a positive comment about a generally negative situation).

"the options aren't complete, but at least they're a start"

At lease can be used by well-meaning people who just do not understand a situation to try to make people feel better. But it falls well short. 

Examples:

My cat ran away.
At least you have two dogs.

My car is broken.
At least you can have it fixed.

My roof is leaking.
At least you have a house.

I have (insert some disease or sickness)
At least it is treatable.

I saw a short video by Dr Brene Brown in a leadership class yesterday about the difference between empathy and sympathy and the use of the words "at least" really resonated with me. If you have a few minutes, watch the whole video, but if you are in a hurry, fast forward to 1:55.

I realized that using the words "at least" minimize the problem and the feelings of the person with the problem. They do not help and they may harm. 

The image I added to the blog highlights the problem. When I fail, I don't want to be reminded that I tried, and failed. I want someone to understand where I am. Maybe just a hug and a reassurance that I am not alone. 

I read another blog on the sympathy and empathy. I found it short and interesting.


What’s The Difference Between Empathy And Sympathy, And Why Has Sympathy Got Such A Bad Name?


I am going to try not to use the words "at least" except when referring to mathematical situations in the future. I realize that "at least" does not convey my true intent when someone brings a problem or concern to my attention.

At least it is Friday.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Monday, October 19, 2015

Monday Musings - October 19, 2015




Snow on the pines along Route 15 in PA
October 18, 2015
1. Snow! For real! I experienced snow in Central NY and Pennsylvania yesterday. Ugh. Winter is too close.

2. The Ravens effectively ended their season with a loss yesterday. A 1-5 record is going to be almost impossible to overcome, unless they decide to go on an 10 game winning streak.

October Fire in the Fireplace
3. One of the joys of a weekend away is discovering new things that were there all along.

4. I didn't play golf this weekend, but I saw a lot of empty golf courses in Upstate NY.

5. The results of my weekend confirmed that New York vineyards continue to improve and develop their wines. The whites are among the best in the country for Rieslings and there are other varietals coming close behind.

Boat Lift in the Early Morning Light
6. Sometimes I run across scenes that are just beautiful. I'm glad that I always have a camera to capture them.

7. Impatient and aggressive drivers are a distinct problem on the highways.

8. Why are some people so willing to give away civil rights that they personally don't appreciate?

9. I have discovered a new style of leadership--leadership by confusion.

10. Transparency is something that we at the same time desire and despise. We want others to be transparent while we work to conceal our own lives and interests.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Saturday, February 1, 2014

Tenured Leadership

It has been a while since I wrote about some leadership principles that I discover while plodding through the daily grind. I have recently revisited the concept of consistent and tenured leadership. Given the current upheaval in government with a bipartisan and ineffective Congress coupled with a diminished President, now is the time to find leaders that know how to plan for the long-haul and can keep the organization steady during turbulent times.

Good leaders have tenure. They are stay in place and they develop depth and understanding in the subject and more importantly the people they lead. Good leaders are prepared to accept the consequences of their decisions in five years--fully expecting to be the leader that made the decisions or sponsored the decisions. That is hard to comprehend in a society and work paradigm that promotes changing leaders every two to three years. Yet, when I look at some very senior leaders, I find that the best ones have been in place for many years and their organizations have continued to excel, despite the paradigm that suggests changing leaders is essential.

Leaders who stay in place are committed to building teams and team leaders who are in place for the long haul. The idea of making a mark is measured in terms of years of consistent success rather than a single big splash in the pool of work life.  We have become a society of the quick-win! Ugh! Quick wins are a facade and are not a barometer of long term success.

Successful long-term tenured leaders must be committed to continual evolution and improvement rather than looking for and snapping off the "low-hanging fruit" to get a quick win so they can declare success before moving on to another job. Leaders for the long-term develop a culture of innovation and change enabling the organization or team to stay ahead of the technologies that affect their business line.

Don't misunderstand, the infusion of new ideas and business approaches from outside the organization is critical. An organization will wither from deficient innovation and failing to maintain its mission lead. But, the infusion of new ideas and practices does not occur through revolving door leaders. It happens when an organization is committed to learning, leaning forward, and developing tradecraft. 

Leaders set the tone and the ethos for an organization, but it is truly the team that encourages innovation and not leadership change for he sake of change. 

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD



Thursday, June 20, 2013

Decisions--Make Them Without Panic

One of the most important traits of effective leaders is the ability to make decisions. Good leaders are inherently effective decision makers and risk takers.

Some people hate making decisions, and so they often make decisions by not making them or said another way, they are default decision makers.

One of the keys to making decisions is to realize that the decision maker rarely has perfect knowledge and therefore must make assumptions to fill in the unknowns. A good decision is one made based upon the best information available at the time. Late information is of no use in making a timely decision. Fretting over making a bad decision is not useful--usually, making a decision is the most important part of the process. Being decisive includes the ability to anticipate the probability of future events and incorporate potential outcomes into the decision making process.

Hindsight may provide the opportunity to second-guess, but hindsight has the advantage that making decisions in realtime does not have: historical knowledge. In my experience, perfect knowledge is too late in the decision making process to be useful.

Decision making is, therefore, an art. It is the art of understanding when enough information exists, allowing for timeliness requirement,s to ensure the decision is effective. For instance, making a decision to buy flood insurance after the storm has arrived and the flood waters are rising is probably not going to have the desired outcome. The decision needed to be made earlier based upon the elevation of the property, the proximity of water, and the probability of flooding based upon the 100 year flood plain.

Decision making improves with practice. The more decisions that are made, the more effective decision maker a person becomes.

Some people make many important decisions per day. Others make few decisions per week. The big decision makers have a methodology to make decisions and realize that almost any decision can be second guessed later--but at the time the decision was made, only certain facts were known.

I am currently working through opportunities related to my recent auto accident. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured and so the primary decision involves how to replace the vehicle which was declared a total loss. This decision involves whether to just replace the vehicle with a used vehicle within the value of the loss, buy a nicer used vehicle for some additional money, or to take the opportunity to purchase a new vehicle. The final decision will be a combination of fiscal resources and opportunities!

The key though, it not to panic. Take a deep breath and enjoy the decision making ride.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD


Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Social Engineering, the Military and Leadership

Over the past 70 or so years, the military has been used as a social engineering prototype for society.

Look at the success of the integration of the races within the military--from segregated units at the beginning of WW2 to shortly thereafter fully integrated units. There is a case to be made that the great baseball player, number 42, Jackie Robinson or the Syracuse running back Ernie Davis could never have been successful in crossing the color barrier without the social engineering which preceded them in the military.

I have been reading about the recent spate of sexual misconduct problems in the military, and frankly, I am mystified. Women and men have been working together in the military for decades. I know, I have personal experience working for and with women. I can categorically state that it works. Just like the integration of races, the integration of genders is a military decades long pioneered success story.

So what is different now that all of these incidents are being reported?

In my mind it is leadership. Or the lack of leadership from the lowest to the highest levels.

We live in a risk averse society and the military is beginning to adopt a risk averse mentality. This is a recipe for failure. The military, by design, is a high risk environment. Where else is the reward for doing you duty faithfully possibly death?

The current crop of military leadership has grown up in an environment of microscopic oversight which leads to legal entanglements and a stifling of initiative which results in management rather than leadership. And it results in rules and laws replacing the demand for common sense and good judgement.

The loss of judgement by leaders is what is behind the problems currently being experienced by our military.

We need, our military needs a new crop of leaders who can make decisions without having to consult lawyers before making a decision.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Technocrat Leadership

I have been considering the impact of email versus the personal interaction in a technology enabled world leadership environment.

I still remember those times not so long ago when typing a letter or a note was a major production, yet now notes in the form of email are sent almost without thinking.  And that can be a problem.

Leading organizations and teams requires adapting to the workers and the work environment. It is too easy for leaders to lose the personal touch and by default become managers rather than leaders. Leading through email ins not always the best option.

There are environments where that is the best option--like leading software writers and computer forensics personnel who are inherently introverts and are all about the technology and not human contact. I suppose if I walked up to them and started a conversation they would be terrified and upset about being distracted for solving the deepest secrets of the project they are engaged in.

But, there remain those work environments which require human touch. Where management by email is definitely the wrong approach. Some people need the personal touch. What I have noticed is that email questions receive email answers and that often is the incomplete message. Having a face to face discussion and getting the full sense of both the question and the answer is far more efficient than a series of emails each providing a chained iteration and expansion on the previous but never really answering the question.

Additionally, some items should never be placed into email--especially private and personnel related matters. Email never goes away. Once written, the writer should expect that the email will always be out there somewhere.

Leading in a technology enabled world requires being able to distinguish between when hiding behind the technology is the right approach and when the personal touch is required. Especially in an analytic environment--the personal touch is best. People who collaborate regularly seem to respond better to engaged and personal leadership.

Leaders must know their people to determine the best style and approach.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

In the Heat of Battle

Sports, it seems, can be a reflection of the warrior spirit that hides inside of us. Like anything, each person is gifted with different portion of warrior spirit--some are blessed with an almost self-destructive portion of warrior spirit.
RGIII on Sunday January 6, 2012

I was moved on Sunday during the Washington Redskins game. As he was laying on the turf after his already damaged knee which had hobbled him for much of the game, I saw that warrior spirit in their quarterback--RGIII. And it may not be a good thing.

The warrior spirit, unchecked, can cause rational people to make irrational and ill-advised choices. The ability to decide to take a path to self-destruction, while sometimes viewed as heroic, can also extract a high toll upon self and those in the vicinity.

While he was clearly heroic on Sunday in trying to lead his team to victory in the face of every increasingly over whelming odds, the decision to remain in the game and face a potentially career ending injury probably was not the right decision. Unlike warfare where there may not be a tomorrow or a next year, in sports next season holds the promise of even greater achievements--if able to participate.

But, in the hear of battle those decisions are not so clear. The harsh morning light of the day after, though, provides the illumination to evaluate decisions.

Leaders need to be sensitive to heat of battle decision making and keep the strategic objective in sight. Needlessly throwing human or fiscal capital into a losing position may have greater a negative impact on the organization than just accepting the position at hand.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Wild and Crazy

The storms last night left a path of destruction in the wake. I spent the better part of the day cleaning up and getting things back together.

Downed limbs, leaves everywhere and a pool mess of incredible proportions.

They say that more storms are due tonight.

At least we can clean up after these storms and do not have to rebuild like so many others are doing after the fires.

We are the lucky ones after all because by mid-afternoon we were swimming in the pool to escape from the heat.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Decisions, decisions, decisions

I make decisions every day. It is part of living. Some are pretty mundane like what color shirt will I wear. Others are a bit more important, for instance will I stop at the red traffic light.

Some people have difficulty making decisions. Really important decisions require thought and consideration. There really big ones fall into the category of things like am I going to buy a new car or change jobs. But most decisions do not fall into the same life altering realm.

I am convinced that for the majority of decisions in what I call the middle zone--that zone between life and death decisions (like stopping at a traffic light) and life altering decisions (changing jobs or buying a new home), the actual decision is less important than actually making a decision.

Decisions are points where I have the ability alter the direction of an activity. For most of the decisions we are faced with, the critical thing is to make the decision and not let fate or chance become the default decision maker. Whether the decision is right or wrong is not the best way to look at the problem. A better way is to look for opportunity.

Decisions are about opportunity. Each decision comes with opportunities gained and lost. Not making a decision or letting a decision point become "overcome by events" or OBE, is not taking advantage of the opportunities present in the situation. That is the definition of a bad decision because it allows inertia to be in charge.

Good or bad, making a decision is always better.

Even seemingly, at the time, decisions which do not maximize opportunities may be the right decision or may work out in the end because the decision maker energized the organization, or family, in a particular direction and that provided the guidance to motivate and mold the solution.

The key to good decisions is realizing that making a decision is the first and most important step in the process. The actual decision itself sometimes is almost secondary.

-- Bob Doan, Elkridge, MD

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Encouragement--The Power of Building Up

Encouragement seems to be a recurring theme in my life.

In an effort to remain a positive person full of optimism and continuing to grow, I have witnessed the aftermath of a less than encouraging experience.

It is simply, destructive.

I fear we are all guilty--and not just me. I mean, I know of times when I see something which is the result of hard work on the part of another--and I find the flaw. All to often the resulting conversation goes something like: "Wow, that is a really great job, but . . . "

That, friends, is not encouragement. Encouragement would stop before the ",but . . ."

We had a message in church a week or so ago about encouragement, and I had forgotten that the command to encourage one another was so prominent in the New Testament. Paul wrote:

"Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, just as you are in fact doing."
- 1 Thess 5:11 - NIV


Pretty strong words.

I have written a few blog entries on encouragement. Tear 'em Down or Build 'em Up? Leading in a mixed up world and Leadership: The Power of "Good Job" and "Thank-you" and of course Empowerment and Encouragement.

It is a recurring theme with me because I see so many people in need of an encouraging word. I know it is tough to be encouraging when I am reviewing a document for publication and need to make changes. The goal is to make it an encouraging teaching moment rather than a demoralizing experience for the author. It is tough to do. But it needs to be done.

If I want to encourage risk takers--in thought and action; I need to encourage them and not assassinate them when the results fall short of the vision we had.

I remember the saying--every cloud has a silver lining. Now that is truly encouragement.

We learn more from adversity than from success.

So from an encouragement point of view--we'll do better next time.

Let's go out for a drink and talk this one over--get out of the office, out of the threatening professional trappings of power and leadership and talk person to person. And at the end of it all--be happy that action was taken. Be encouraged. Tomorrow can be better than today.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Leadership--the Intangible

Leadership is intangible, and therefore no weapon ever designed can replace it. Omar N. Bradley

I get a lot out of this quote from General Omar Bradley because it underscores the fundamental nature of leadership. Leadership is not a physical thing and it must be done by people--leaders. I do not believe leadership can ever be relegated to a computer to recreate. It is a skill about handling and motivating people.

So there you are---a great technician, fully knowledgeable in your area of expertise. Loving being a technician. You could be a great teacher, or a research engineer, or a software designer.

A recognized expert in your field.

Respected by peers and superiors.


And now suddenly you find yourself "promoted" into a leadership position. They (notice how we often refer to leadership above us as , "they?") want you to lead a team.


Scared? Yeah, if that is what happened to you, you should be scared because good technicians make good leaders only with assistance and if they have not offered you assistance--you are being set up for a lot of frustration and potentially failure.

That means that you must actively search out and get leadership advice. Notice I said leadership and not management. You are a manager--we all are managers. We all manage things in order to survive: the fuel in the gas tank, the money in the checking account, the groceries on our shelves. So being a manager at work is fundamentally no different than what we do every day.

But . . .

Leadership is different--it involves people.

It is intangible.

It is not easy and there is no cookbook formula for success. Why? Because every team and every person and every task in different. A good leader is able to find the style, the motivation, the approach for the specific situation or mission.

It took me a long time to understand the subtleties--but that is why leadership in the US Navy was always seemed so different from the leadership I did as an officer in the US Air Force. But now I understand, there is a different mission and set of standards that must be followed on a naval vessel as compared to an Air Force Base.

That is why leadership of a small church group is so different from leadership of a work group charged with a specific task.

The skills are similar--but are not identically transferable.

So what is needed? A discussion of the basic principles of leadership and tools for the tool box.

Most important though? Leaders need to see the person in each team member.

It is through motivating people to achieve that leaders succeed.

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Plug-n-Play Leadership: The Wrong Answer

I heard the following words the other day as I was receiving feedback on my recent nomination package.

"You are too narrow. Our paradigm is that senior leaders almost need to be plug-n-play--able to perform anywhere based upon their experience."

Ugh!

That, friends, is everything that is wrong with the current generation of leaders in America. To avoid having to take responsibility for their actions and to follow through to completion the implementation of their strategies, senior leaders are moved on a regular two-year schedule and never develop the full understanding of the organization they are leading.

I saw and felt it when I was an officer in the Air Force and now as a government "bureaucrat" I see the same thing.

Plug-n-play leadership is both wasteful and inefficient. It reduces leadership to concepts and strategies which can be applied impartially across the board rather than adapted to the strengths and weaknesses of the specific team or organization. It makes senior leaders effectively senior managers.

I work in a small organization that has a huge impact. Why? Because our leadership is more than just a decision-making manager down the hall. Leadership is intimate with the mission and understands, no, had a really deep appreciation of how the mission needs to be accomplished and how to take care of the people who are principally responsible for the getting the job done.

Do we get it right all of the time? No--no one does. But then we do not get enamored with the latest "fad" leadership term or style either. Everything can be carefully considered to ensure the burden on the mission staff is minimized and that they have the tools and encouragement to do their jobs.

I believe, because I have seen it in action, that mission savvy leaders have a disproportionately high positive impact on the organization when they use their skills properly. Plug-n-play leaders are quickly reduced to managers and depend upon others to do the real leading in the organization until they get the smarts to successfully represent and lead the organization.

What is the difference you ask between leaders and managers?

In its simplest form the difference is that leaders lead people and managers manage things. It is a lot tougher to lead than to manage.

Experienced in the organization leaders are a stabilizing force that helps the organization retain its focus in the face of turbulence.

Look at successful small businesses--the owners are the leaders. they are personally invested in the success of the organization.

Likewise, should it not also be true that when leaders are personally invested in their organization they are more effective?

Ineffective leaders need to be moved/removed--but effective leaders should be retained to ensure strength in the organization.

There is no such thing as plug-n-play leadership. Maybe plug-n-play management, but leaders can never be plug and play. There are emotions and investment to consider in effectively leading an organization.

A successful leader should be successful anywhere, it is not the number of diverse assignments that makes success but the character and capabilities of the person--but why risk organizational success in one area to fix another? And why risk the success of the larger organization just to move leaders around so they can have the illusion of plug-n-play?

Fundamentally, it may be a conspiracy theory at work--the CEO may be afraid that the next tier of leaders are more capable and are therefore a threat so by constantly moving them to preclude expertise in any one area, the threat is diminished.

So--the bottom line--plug-n-play leadership is a myth. It develops a generation of leaders that have not had to accept the responsibility for their action and who know a very little about a lot and can be considered dangerous.

Deeper understanding of the relationship is better.

Just because a leader has depth does not mean that they cannot perform anywhere. That is a myth. Effective leadership is transferable, but good leaders are personally invested in their organizations.


And I will never be seen as a viable candidate for senior executive because I'm too deep (or was that narrow?)

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Standing at the Door--Please Don't Knock, It's Open for a Reason

I work with some people who just cannot get used to informality.

They insist on knocking on my open office door before entering or even then wait to be invited to enter.

It really bugs me--because I do not like separating myself from my team with such trappings of either authority or power.

My boss does not require such from me--why should I retain psychological power holdovers from a previous era?

I want to be a member of the "team" and not just the coach/manager/leader.

That I am "management" should not be reinforced by holding on to the trappings of percieved power that separate us--but one of the strengths of a well functioning team is seeing that everyone has a job or position, they do it and they do it together.

I know when I hear some of the team some talk about "management" (or "them") they are referring to me and the office area I sit in, but still--I want them to know that when they say these things I understand that they feel disenfranchised and not part of the solution to the problem they are complaining about.

Teams are about shared responsibility and effort.

Some need to have the authority and responsibility to make decisions--but all should be invested in the outcome--personally.

Teams really work best when the team members care. One way everyone cares is if the barriers that separate team members are reduced.

If the leadership provides the general guidance and support that the team needs then there is a good chance the team will be efficient and adaptable to the changing stress of the moment.

If the door is open--come on in! We are all in this together.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Plagiarsim Conundrum--A Newspaper Item Hits Home

I read a fascinating article in the New York Times the other day titled, Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age.

It brought back memories of college and writing long involved 20-30 page double-spaced and typed (yes typed) papers after poring over texts in the library. How I wish that I had had a computer in my dorm room back then to help me do the research in the comfort and clutter of my room.

Or so I thought, until I realized how the blurring of lines between original thought and creating collages of thoughts has affected today's computer-literate generation.

I strive to ensure that when I use items from other's works, I document them with hyper-links back to the original--not because I worry about plagiarism, but more so that the reader can read the entire piece and determine for themselves if I have used the extract in a consistent manner that is contextually consistent.

But as I read the article I referenced here, I realized that despite the best efforts of all of us, the boundary between common knowledge and unique theme-specific knowledge has become blurred. I often ask myself--how do I know that? Was that my idea? Or did I read it somewhere?

The information age is truly a complex one.

The tendrils of thought have become confused.

And then--the article I referenced earlier ends with the following paragraphs:

Many times, said Donald J. Dudley, who oversees the discipline office on the campus of 32,000[UC Davis], it was students who intentionally copied — knowing it was wrong — who were “unwilling to engage the writing process.”

“Writing is difficult, and doing it well takes time and practice,” he said.

And then there was a case that had nothing to do with a younger generation’s evolving view of authorship. A student accused of plagiarism came to Mr. Dudley’s office with her parents, and the father admitted that he was the one responsible for the plagiarism. The wife assured Mr. Dudley that it would not happen again.

It is easy to justify what you are doing in your mind--right up until someone asks about it.

Writing like any skill, must be learned and practiced.

But we live in an instant society--where we can have and we long for anything we can get, instantly!

Hence--writing is reduced to copying someone else's thoughts.

We all need to strive for originality and creativity--but when someone else says it just the way we would have said it--at least give them credit.
My Zimbio
Top Stories