Cylinder of Excellence: A Study in Self Importance

The other day, a friend of mine referred to a situation in our office as an example of the "cylinder of excellence capitol of the world."

I was stunned and amazed--so amazed that I wrote the phrase down and my mind has been turning it over teasing it out in the week since it was uttered.

There was so much packed into those seven words that I still can barely comprehend the complete meaning of the phrase.

The cylinder part was fantastic as it describes an entire universe or work unit. Totally self-contained and self-absorbed with no inputs allowed from the outside.

The idea of a cylinder is that it stands by itself, unlike a sphere which can roll, and it is there for others to see and often trip over. Additionally, there is nothing connecting this free-standing cylinder to the world around it. It is because it is. Kind of a parody of Descartes "I think, therefore I am."

Add into this self-absorbed and self-important environment the self-declaration of excellence. The ego factor is increasing exponentially here. But, in fact, many places consider themselves to be Centers of Excellence--and that title is self assigned. There is no agency designated to bestow upon an organization the rating of Center of Excellence. Leadership does it in its own.

It is often used to convey a message, but in my way of thinking it all too often is a gratuitous title. If, in face, and organization is a center of excellence, then their products and services will reflect that as will the bottom line success of the organization.

And now for the closing phrase-- "capitol of the world!" Of course this is a tongue in cheek comment which really drives home the point that the dis-connectedness and the self-importance of the cylinder of excellence is unmatched and is an example for other "Wanna Be's" to emulate.

What kind of organizations are guilty of this behavior? All kinds--from civic to governmental to private industry to religious.

I have seen organizations in all of these areas pride themselves on being the "cylinder of excellence capitol of the world."

What do we need to do to prevent our organization from becoming a cylinder of excellence?

Stay connected to peer organizations and customers and partners. Also, work collaboratively--giving as well as receiving. Stay in touch.

AND--don't think so highly of yourself that you can't accept ideas from outside.

Break down the philosophy which continues to promote the "not invented here" syndrome. Open the organization to the outside and allow solid connection to others.

It is not good to be a cylinder of excellence capitol of the world--it is much better to be seen as a collaborative, open, innovative organization which constantly reinvents itself to meet the demands of the market or the customers it is trying to serve.

Just because we did it that way 10 years ago doesn't mean we need to do it that way today--but also, it doesn't necessarily mean we HAVE to change, either.

Ask the customers what they need to be successful and then partner with other organizations, if necessary, to meet the need.

Family vs Work: And the Winner Is?

The situation:

A major presentation due at work or travel to attend a grandchild's wedding? What are you going to do?

For conflicts involving big family events: marriages, funerals, reunions, vacations, kid sporting events; the family should win out over work nearly every time!

I think it is important to understand that nearly everyone believes this to be true, so when people use the excuse that work won't allow you to attend--they all know that you don't want to attend and are too disingenuous just to say so! I mean, I have been in the rare situation where I've been called away to support some important operation--but those are generally pretty rare.

People know!

And it is important to have a healthy perspective of work requirements vs personal life situations.

To begin binning the demands on my life--I look at life and priorities as follows:

1, God (personal relationship, not duties associated with religious organizations)
2. Personal Health and Well Being
3. Family - spouse and kids (and grand kids)
4. Work (to include volunteer activities, like churches and fraternal organizations)
5. Extended Family and relatives
6. Friends
7. Home maintenance and repairs
8. Someone I just met
9. A stray animal

So by using the above order, I find I'm getting it right more than not!

So let me give you some examples.

Attending Ethan's Tee-ball games--priority 3
Mowing the lawn - Priority 7
Playing Racquetball - priority 2
Taking a nap - priority 2
Running out in the middle of dinner to view a house for Jeremy - priority 3
Enjoying Happy Hour with Friends on Friday night - priority 2
Helping Jeremy Move (OMG that is gonna be a priority 3, ugh!)
Helping a friend make a trip to the landfill - priority 6

So you kinda get it.

Now--to explain some of the weirdness in the priorities.

Mowing the lawn contributes to the upkeep of the home and is a priority 7 item--but if I don't get it done in a timely manner, it could become a priority 3 issue--where the spouse begins to need it accomplished for her well being.

Although taking a nap contributes to my personal well being, I don't have to take a nap to be happy so I generally do not take naps--but I dream about that afternoon siesta all the time!

So in answer to the question about attending the grandchild's wedding--the wedding wins! Hands down--even if the work conflict is church related and it's the senior pastor of the church. I've seen our pastor leave for these things. And see my blog on delegation to assist in resolving the problems associated with priority conflicts.

Finally, don't let priority 1 and 4 get fuzzy.

Many people do!

Delegation--The Secret to Success

We all intuitively know that if we can keep our priorities straight and work from the most important to the least, that life will be good and we will be fulfilled, right? And if we don't have enough time or energy to get something done--well as long as it's a low priority then "no harm, no foul."

Hold it right there.

We all also know this is so totally, not true!

All of our priorities need to be completed from the most important to the least. At least that's how we feel.

If it didn't need to be done, then it wouldn't have a priority. No matter where in the schema it falls out.

That then is the problem. It all needs to be done and we all know there is never enough time to get it all done.

And then there are those conflicting appointments--and problems trying to resolve which one to attend.

The secret to success? Delegation.

This is where the priority system really works. When there are truly competing priorities--then delegate someone else to attend in your place. That way, effectively, you can be in multiple places simultaneously.

Integrity Lapses End Badly

The Baltimore Mayor is resigning. Despite how she may believe, she committed a crime.

Here's the rub--she gets to keep her pension in excess of $83,000 per year!

I wrote about this in my blog in December in an article titled "Me First -- Of Mayors and Travel. I wrote about the "me first" mentality and the problem associated with our society.

It was reported that when the judge asked Mayor Dixon if she agreed to the guilty plea she responded--"basically." A classic "me first" approach. I am convinced that the mayor believes that the only thing she did wrong, was to get caught! And she's not sorry for the indiscretion. She has totally lost respect for her position and the people of Baltimore, by whom she was elected to serve as their mayor.

Dan Rodericks, in an Op-Ed piece for the Baltimore Sun made the following observation:

And there you are, my fellow citizens - resignation by the mayor of Baltimore, and without a formal apology. But you can't always get what you want. Sheila Dixon was not about to say she was sorry for anything. If you were thinking that might happen, you need to see a doctor; your expectations are too high and you probably need to go on a reduced-Pollyanna diet.


I believe this case highlights the end result of integrity loss. The results, as in this case, are tragic. A competent public official becomes an bad example for others NOT to emulate.

Integrity is something to be valued and protected. It also protects us. Each small integrity lapse begins a journey that can ultimately end in disgrace or compromise.

It can be argued that an $83,000 per year pension is not much punishment for a series of integrity shortcomings (she could of and arguably should have been sent to jail.) However, Mayor Dixon was one of the most powerful political figures in the State of Maryland--and that is lost. Her loss of integrity and the resultant "me first" attitude demonstrate in clear terms the value of protecting integrity and not succumbing to the little indiscretions which make the slide to full integrity loss possible.

Leaders--take heed. Integrity is required for us to be effective. Without integrity, there can be no true leadership.

"To Do" or "Not To Do"?

Ever notice how the "To Do" list grows faster than items are removed from it?

I know mine does. There are a lot of things on my "To Do" list and they seem to languish there for a while as the list grows ever longer.

I ran across a truism about "to do" lists the other day while talking to a co-worker.

It appears, that in my case anyway, the things that go on the "to do" list are the things I don't really want to do--like paint the ceiling or replace the gas tank in the Jaguar. The items I want to do, or that need to be done whether I want to or not, are actually done.

My "to do" list is a parking lot for those things which need to be done, but which aren't critical. I sometimes use lists to map out my daily tasks if I have a bunch of critical things to do--but all of the things on that "to do" list are things which must be accomplished before I either go home from work or before I go to bed at night, else significant consequences will occur.

So in addition to the two items I've already mentioned here are my current "to do's" and a rough length of time the item has been languishing:

1. Clean the garage (waiting 2 years)
2. Build adequate storage in the garage for the junk (waiting two years)
3. Reduce the amount of stuff in the attic (waiting three years)
4. Order a new door handle for my truck (three months so far)
5. Replace/fix the passenger door lock on my truck (two years)
6. Put the winter mats in the Lexus (two months)
7. Stain the deck (one year)
8. Replace the basement door (two years)
9. Fix the family room French door so it closes smoothly (seems like forever)
10. Get the Jaguar a tune up so it starts easier in the cold (three months)
11. Buy Chris a new rim for the Lexus (too long)
12. You get the idea . . .

Now I admit--a few things have made it off the list recently:

1. Paint the kitchen and Family Room ceilings - took two months
2. Fix Nicole's laptop - took two months
3. Fix my laptop - took one month
4. Take down the Snow Village - got done on time on Jan 2

So, it seems, "to do" lists don't work for me. They become parking lots (or possibly auto junk yards) for projects I don't want to tackle.

So in answer to the question--not to do!

Leadership: Keeping the Strategic Focus

At times--we get pulled in many different directions. The senior leadership, likewise, may also be pulled in directions and into situations which, if not properly assessed, could be detrimental to the larger organization.

I learned many years ago that we need to recognize the three spheres of influence within which we work: tactical, operational, and strategic.

Tactical is the fight going on right in your face. It is the small scale skirmishes which occur daily in the work place and in office politics. In the military--these are the operations of units directly engaged in operations. There are life and death struggles--and it is though tactical operations that the larger wars are won. Sales are made, new clients found.

Operational is the collective of tactical operations as they relate to a unified goal or objective in a larger sphere. In the military this is a theater of operations. In business--this might be domestic versus overseas operations. It involves the synchronicity of multiple tactical operations in coordination to achieve the larger objective.

Strategic is the key. What are he grander goals of the nation, or the larger company. Blending the operational goals into a unified strategy and focusing that direction is how empires are made. it is how GM became GM.

But then it was all lost.

Business lost its strategic vision. Short term success (a tactical type of goal) overtook the strategic planning and business models. No longer was there recapitalization of capacity. The goal was short term market increase at the expense of everything else. That is what the investors wanted.

Gains, gains, gains!

It could only go on so long. At some point without reinvestment and recapitalization the strategic battle was lost. There was no basis on which to continue to innovate and develop. It had been sold to please the brokers and the investors.

The United States is facing a similar problem. We are pouring so much energy (talent and treasure) into Afghanistan and Iraq and we are drawing down the strategic advantage that we carry over from the past, but we are not reinvesting in our strategic advantage.

The well is going dry.

Just like in business when the strategic vision is lost, I worry that the U.S. may soon suffer a strategic surprise. We have mortgaged our future without any plan for payoff.

Leadership requires keeping your eye on the ball, whether you are the leader of a small team, a division within a company, a military maneuver unit, or of the free world.

Becoming focused at the grass roots level (tactical) when you are responsible for strategic vision is a recipe for disaster.

Tear 'em Down or Build 'em Up? Leading in a mixed up world.

What is a team leader to do?

Standing in the doorway watching the members of the team stroll in for the work day. Some with smiles on their faces and some with frowns.

Ever notice the ones whose shoulders are hunched over as if they are carrying a heavy load of burden and stress?

Wonder why the ones smiling are?

What is a leader to do? Add more stress and tear down the ones who are smiling so they can join everyone else?

Some days it seems that the "misery loves company" motto is too true.

Don't believe it. Teams need encouragement--not discouragement to be effective. Focus on the positives to remove or minimize the negatives.

Let people know what they are doing that is right and great.

Leaders need to help keep the team focused. This is a tough job. Build up--do not tear down.

People spend about one-third of their waking hours at work--so the environment we create at work is going to affect people and we need to manage it to keep it positive or at least neutral.

Productivity and creativity will increase.

Leadership: The Power of "Good Job" and "Thank-you"

I have written before about encouragement and empowerment from a larger team framework--but I want to get really personal about encouragement.

How did you feel the last time someone--like your boss, told you "Good Job!" and they meant it!

I usually flush with embarrassment because I always try to do a "Good Job", but I always appreciate being noticed, too. AND, do you feel a little bit more noticed when the boss says these words in front of others--and they are not forced or preplanned?

Sometimes I think it is easier for us to say "thank-you" to a perfect stranger (like for holding a door open for us) than it is to say "good job" or "thank-you" to our co-workers and friends. A sad commentary on where we are in our society.

OK, OK -- we get paid to do a good job, right? So it's expected?

But we all know, some good jobs are harder than others. When people really give a little of themselves and sacrifice for the team--then we, as leaders, really owe them some recognition and "thank-you" goes a long way--especially the impromptu "thanks--that was a nice job."

AND now the hard part--a forced "thank-you" or an after thought "good job" is almost as worthless as play money.

When you say these words--you must mean them and they need to be a true representation of how you feel. Otherwise, they will be seen as gratuitous.

This is the hard part for some leaders--actually recognizing the hard work of their team members and appreciating their efforts. Leaders get wrapped up in the "crisis du jour" and easily overlook the team members who are there beside them day after day.

Leaders intend to recognize the team, it just doesn't make the "top ten crises" being worked right now.

Change that.

People, and especially your team, need to be in the top ten list--every day!

"Good job!"

Leadership - The Indispensible Syndrome

Ever get into a situation when you feel as if the team will totally fail without you?

I have.

I suppose we get the idea from sports where one key player goes down--like the quarterback on a football team, and the team fails to make the playoffs. We blame the lack of a quarterback on the missed opportunity. But really--there was another quarterback who stepped in. Think of the great back-ups who have taken their teams to the playoffs after the starter was injured--like Earl Morrall.

But really? How many times have you heard it said that it takes a team to succeed and even if someone makes a poor play or causes a penalty, or hits into a season ending triple-play, it is not as if that was the only opportunity that the team had during the entire game. There are many opportunities--we just seem to remember the dramatic endings as time runs out or the third out of the ninth inning.

The belief that the entire success or failure of the team is up to one person is not something seen in only the team leaders. Team members can also feel as if they are indispensable. Without them, nothing will get done and there will be total chaos and utter failure. And for a moment in time--just the right moment it may be true. But it cannot be and should not be an all-day, every-day thing.

Really?


Come on--what happened before you? And the mark of a good team leader/member is training your replacement--remember that concept of succession planning?

Think of the stress! If you really are the only one--then how do you ever take a day off? Even God rested on the seventh day! And, nothing personal, but believing that you are absolutely indispensable kind of equates your view of yourself with that of a god.

So what is really going on here?

I think it is a matter of low self-esteem or self-worth. Losing oneself in the team provides a personal boost of importance and hides a multitude of other problems.

Don't get me wrong, each team member needs to feel important and to be a true contributing member--but there is a difference between contributing to success and being indispensable.

Think of the broken relationships caused by being indispensable. Those extra hours and effort given to the team, or at the office, or to the church, or to whatever project/team you are part of are given at an expense in relationships with family and friends. I am a living example of the work-alcoholic approach to live. A classic Type-A military officer who takes charge and is the last one to leave the ship when it's going down! Pretty empty at the end of the day.


Balance. There needs to be balance.

True--the team may not be as efficient when you are gone--but stuff will still be done and if the absence is planned, others can step up to fill the gap.

In my business, people come and go all the time. We plan to fill gaps. We are always looking around and asking the--"what if ____ get's hit by a bus" question. Teams need to plan for success and not to burn members out. During each big project we strive to allow the "back-ups" to get some playing time so they feel more comfortable making decisions. There is nothing worse than getting called while on vacation with a "big problem" that someone else should be able to handle. If only I had trained them!





So here are some hard words: You are not indispensable! If you think you are you are doing yourself AND your whole team a disservice and stifling the growth of those around you. And, you are harming yourself by not allowing yourself to have healthy relationships with family and friends.

Get a life outside your team. Being critical and important and contributing is good. But, being indispensable is very dysfunctional.

"The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men." Charles de Gaulle

Teams and Rain and Expectations

Ever notice that when the weather is rainy, gray, and overcast that people begin to notice the weather and it affects them in a negative manner? Like, for instance, the past three days have been nothing but rain and gray, and unseasonable cold temperatures. People are sluggish and moving and sometimes thinking slowly.

Team leaders need to be sensitive to weather effects on their teams. Leaders tend to be highly charged people who on most days probably don't even notice the weather--and this can become a source of frustration when dealing with their teams.

Leaders need to find ways to interact with the sluggish team members and help them overcome the effects of the weather. Charge them up--without turning them off. Help them spin up to speed and obtain the high energy that you have.

So what is a leader to do when confronted with a lethargic team on a high energy day?


First, begin to ramp the energy level up so they team rises to meet you.

Second, allow them the opportunity to rise on their own up to your expectations--but expect them to meet you.

Finally, recognize--people are affected by weather. Adjust your activity and expectations.

Success means recognizing the capabilities and limitations of your team as well as understanding the impact of outside influences.

Equipping the Team for Success

I was reminded about an important aspect of leadership while in church the other day.

Good leaders equip their team members to do the work. The real problem is when the leader abrogates this important task and forgets how to interact and equip the team members.

This is biblical! Read Ephesians 4:11-12. It speaks to the leaders and what they are supposed to do for the team members--equip them.

"It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ," (Eph 4:11-12, NET Bible)

These verses struck me as being applicable to many areas of life--and especially teams. Churches are, after all, teams of people working together for an important outcome. The world borrows lots of ideas from the Church and then changes them a bit and calls them the product of "Renaissance thinking" or some other moniker. But we know where they really come from.

This concept works for teams. The leaders need to equip the team members to do their jobs. The leaders must not do the jobs--but be about getting the resources, and training, and developing the enthusiasm in the team to successfully accomplish the mission or task.

I've been part of teams where the leader has great ideas, and great vision; but doesn't provide the team members the skills or the desire to achieve the end state. It is sad. Because the ideas are great. But the execution fails because the leader isn't doing the job and therefore, the team can't do its job.

Churches can be like this too. With paid staffs and professional pastors, the membership may develop the idea that if they throw enough money at the problem--they will succeed. That is a sure sign that the pastors and teachers aren't doing their jobs--equipping the members to do the work. Somewhere the idea gets turned that the pastors and teachers are doing the work. And some pastors may thrive on this--being the key cog in the wheel. These pastors may even be afraid that if the team gets too good, they won't be needed. But it's not true.

Sometimes team leaders are their own worst enemies, too. They say they want the team members to move out and do the work--but when it comes right down to it they are afraid to let the team do its mission. They throw up roadblocks to success--their own success as it would be. The create a dysfunctional dependency-based relationship where the team cannot--no is not allowed, to do its work without the direct and intimate involvement of the leader. How are they going to learn?

I have seen this over and over again. Leaders cripple rather than equip their team because they are afraid the team won't need them.

I think what this verse and what I take away from all of this is--charge them up and send them out.

Equip the team for success. Give the team members the tools and enthusiasm to do their tasks and then LET THEM DO IT! Yeah, there will be mistakes, but consider these as teaching points.

The team will be stronger and will begin to meet is tasks and perform its mission and purpose.

Things or People?

So I got it from two very different sources over the weekend.

First, my boss gave me a book to read titled Gung Ho! by Ken Blanchard and Sheldon Bowles. We have been having some turbulence at work personnel wise and I'm not sure why he handed me this book to read the other day--but I'm glad he did. It is the leadership style that I try to emulate and believe in.

The book is not new--it was written in 1998, but the focus is upon the people of an organization. Simply--make sure people:

1. Have worthwhile work,
2. Are in control of achieving the goal and
3. Are committed to cheering each other on.

The Native American approach the book uses appeals to me a lot.

There is a great quote in the book: "Running a business from numbers is like playing basketball while watching the scoreboard instead of the ball. Look after the basics if you want success, and the first basic is the team."

OK--so what was the second source?

That would be the sermon on Sunday in church on Jonah 4.

We have been going through the book of Jonah learning about our relationship with God and how we are much more like Jonah than we would really like to believe. This week was the last in the series--which has really been fascinating and full of awesome teaching.

One point that was made on Sunday though was about the difference in perspective of God and Jonah.

In Chapter 4, God causes a plant to grow one day and shade Jonah while he is mad at God and then die the next day. Jonah is furious.

And then God lays it out for him: Jonah is more concerned about the plant for which Jonah did nothing than the 120,000 people in Nineveh. Jonah is more concerned about process than people. God is more concerned about the people and even the cattle. Read it!

So this is the take away. As people and especially as leaders and managers, we need to be more concerned about people than the process. Processes are important, yes--but without people we really don't need any processes.

God is concerned about people and that is the model for good leaders.

Super Bowl Leadership Lesson

The family met and conquered another Super Sunday.

It is sad that another NFL season has ended. At least one family member is happy with the outcome--but I nearly had to call 9-1-1 during the last part of the 4th quarter. It was great to watch someone so in tune with his team that he never lost faith--well, almost never. He was really questioning the game situation with a little over 2 minutes to go, his team down, and not moving or controlling the ball very well.

We run across situation similar to that in life every so often. Time running out, our situation bleak, and having to dig down deep to pull out a miracle.

Ever think about those times? When the miracle finish actually happens? Who do we thank for it?

Do we keep all the credit for ourselves, or do we share it with those who helped?

Isn't that the true character of a winner and a leader? To humble themselves and build up others? Share the success and shoulder the blame for a poor performance.

Do we thank God for our success? For our abilities? Do we thank those around us?

I'm reminded of Big Ben holding the Lombardi Trophy yelling his thanks and praise to his O-line!

A study in leadership!

The Hope of the Nation

Wow, as I watched the Inauguration yesterday on TV, I was touched by the faces of the people in the crowds. Faces that seemed to be springing to life with hope that tomorrow will be better than yesterday.

Change sometimes does that for us, doesn't it? Allows us to break from the the past and reinvent ourselves. That is just the position our new President finds himself. All of those lofty idealistic statements and the visioning. Now its crunch time. Time to distance ourselves for what we didn't like about yesterday and remake our nation and ourselves into what we want it to be for the future.

I too have hope.


I think it is time to change and lean into the bit from a different direction. Seems nothing was getting done form the way we were approaching the problem.

See--there's hope.

We as people need to also assess our lives and the direction we are headed. Are we getting stuff done from the approach we are taking, or are we just banging our heads against the immovable wall of resistance. If we're not moving forwards, then perhaps there comes a time in our lives when we too must consider changing course and holding out hope for a new path.

Leaders need to be tuned into their teams and their processes to determine when a strategy change could be needed. Reinvent the team as we reinvent ourselves.

Just as our President seeks to reinvent our nation and change our focus--just so long as we hold fast to our basic core values.

Authenticity--Team Leaders

I read an interesting article on authenticity as it relates to leaders and leadership this week. It really got me thinking. The article by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones is Managing Authenticity: The Paradox of Great Leadership.

I've met a lot of leaders in my life and had the opportunity to work for some truly great leaders with whom I really connected. I had never really though about why we connected before, or why I really knew these leaders cared about me as part of their organization.

On the other hand, I have also had the opportunity to be part of organizations where it was clear the leaders didn't have it together and for whom I had no illusions that they were great leaders. They were just doing the job--and not that well.

It dawns on me that I was assessing the authenticity of their leadership.

What is authentic leadership?

Well, the Center for Authentic Leadership describes it as follows:

"The measure of a man or woman is more than the sum of one’s words or deeds. It is the impact of who we are being as we speak and act that leaves the greatest imprint on others."

Goffee and Jones stated it as simply as the following: "First, you have to ensure that your words are consistent with your deeds; otherwise, followers will not accept you as authentic."

You've probably been in the presence of leaders which make your "skin crawl" because you know that although they appear to be your best friend, you are convinced they really don't care about you and are out for whatever they can get out of you to advance their personal issues. They have a problem with authenticity. I call it something more obvious--they are flat out disingenuous.

Team leaders need authenticity. They need to be comfortable with themselves and also not be afraid to be vulnerable. Who they are deep in their very souls needs to be congruent with who they are as a leader. This does not mean leaders can't play different roles--we are all called to different roles as situations require--but the way the roles are performed needs a sense of consistency that can only come from internal congruence.

Great leaders are not poor leaders trying to be great. They are not insecure people acting out their part--they are congruent in all aspects of their life and they are comfortable with themselves and the role they are called to serve in.

Goffee and Jones kinda summed it up: "Authentic leaders remain focused on where they are going but never lose sight of where they came from."

Who Are You Working For?

Well who? Consider this.

An elected representative believes they are working for the electorate. They enact legislation and develop bills to bring money and government support to their district. On the surface this seems to be good thinking. The representative wants to get reelected and by showing concern and support for the electorate it would seem that that is why the people elected them in the first place. But wait--if each elected representative is doing the same thing, then who is working for the greater good of the country and the world. It could be postulated that this is one of the problems that our government currently has--the elected representatives are thinking and working at too low a level--hence all of the "pork barrel" projects that plague our budget.

A couple weeks ago as our pastor was finishing a sermon series on Proverbs he posed this question to the congregation. He had discussed a number of important verses in Proverbs about work ethic (Prov 10:4, 6:10-11 and 21:21) and ideas about working first and playing later (Prov 24:27). It was the closing idea of the message and he only briefly addressed it--because the reference isn't from Proverbs at all, but rather Colossians. He referenced Colossians 3:23-24:

3:23 Whatever you are doing, work at it with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not for people, 3:24 because you know that you will receive your inheritance from the Lord as the reward. Serve the Lord Christ. (NET Bible)

This is an important issue for leaders. So I'm going to dig into the concept a bit deeper.

Knowing who are we working for is important because it is in knowing who we are working for that we will be able to determine what decisions and actions we should be taking.

There are a few answers to the question "Who am I working for?" Some of the answers could be: my boss, my country, myself, the stockholders, the electorate. How leaders answer the question is critical in evaluating success and in providing a context for decision making.

As in the case of the elected representative, the belief of who we are working for influences our on-the-job decision making.

So in answer to the question: "Who are we working for?" we draw from Colossians--we are working for the Lord. That, as they say, changes everything. The whole reason we go to work, the decisions we make at work and in leading our team, even the standards we use to evaluate success are cast in a different view when we accept and understand who we are working for in reality.

This may put us at odds with our earthly bosses as we make morally correct and consistent decisions.

But the up side is--we will be consistent and understandable--by our peers, our subordinates and our earthly bosses. Making decisions consistent with God's values, while not often easy, is why God called us to be in the professions he called each of us to be in. We are there to contribute in the manner God has called us. Sometimes that means we make correct decisions which may be unpopular with those who think they are our bosses.

But then--we'll be able to cut out the pork!

Team Leader Feedback - Use It!

A strong leader always seeks feedback. And not just from the traditional sources. 

Leaders expect to get feedback from their superiors--it is part of the process. Really good leaders find ways to get unvarnished feedback from their team and even from their peers--whether through formalized 360 degree assessments or through informal actions. Really exceptional leaders also geet feedback from outsiders and customers and then do a remarkable thing--they use it to their advantage.

The key is getting the feedback and making it useful.

Feedback often is not "nice" and may not make us feel too good about ourselves--especially the informal kind that comes from non-traditional sources. It often leaves us saying: that's not me, or  looking for reasons why the view presented is skewed or does not match with reality. Our nature is to discard feedback inconsistent with our view of the team or ourselves.

I recently received feedback from a promotion cycle which was not consistent with independent feedback I had received from two other sources. It was painful to read (as it was all distilled down) that I was considered qualified in the only area the other two sources noted as my weakest area and that I was not considered qualified in areas considered my strongest--and in which I had received validation only months before from another official government process that I was considered fully qualified in all areas.

Am I going to discard the feedback because it is inconsistent? No. I'm trying to understand the differences and use the feedback to make me more competative the next time around. The feedback is valid, but was unexpected. I need to use the feedback to improve myself and to ensure my qualifications more clearly match the standards.

Team leaders need to do the same type of assessment. When seemingly inconsistent feedback is received (good or bad--the key is inconsistent) consider it valid and take action. There is something of value which will make the team stronger by working on it.

The easy way out is to say, well we know this isn't valid because of (and then begin listing everything that says the feedback is not valid). But in fact, for the person or agency which provided the feedback, the feedback is valid and it is our job as leaders to figure it out and find the nuggets which will make the team (and ourselves as leaders) stronger.

Sometimes it's not pretty!  It is definitely not fun.  But leaders have to ask: Why is this true? What can I do about it? Do I need to do anything about it?

Seek feedback on yourself, your team, your product, your processes and then use it to make a positive difference.

So What Are You Going to do About it?

We would never get on an aircraft or a train without knowing what the destination was, would we? As a society we spend a lot of time worrying about destinations and end games and what the final outcome is supposed to be.

It is important to have a vision about the end state. What is the deliverable? Where we are going? Maybe even knowing why we are going there. How does it help the team or meet an objective?

Leading teams requires the leader to look out ahead and see the objective as well as the obstacles. Foresee the dangers that need to be overcome.

In church this Sunday, the message was based on Proverbs 22:3.

A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it. (NIV)

And it struck me--leaders need to be able to see into the future, recognize the danger AND take action. Three very important things.

Most of us can tell the difference between the light at the end of the tunnel and the headlamp of the oncoming train--but the critical aspect is: so what are we going to do about it?

Asking the "what are we going to do about it?" question is what separates successful from unsuccessful leaders.

The successful leader sees the danger or the obstacle AND develops mitigation strategies and plans for the impending activity. At the same time, the leader keeps the team informed of the activity—both the obstacle/danger and the mitigation strategy. This is a critical aspect of transparency—which leaders need to minimize panic and rumors.

Leaders who are "heads-down" and just worrying about the day-to-day operations may see the danger/obstacle, but like the simple person in the Proverb, don't take action until it is upon them. Then they pay the price for not thinking into the future. Usually that price is very high and could be failure or at a minimum a serious delay in achieving the desired end state.

One of the traits that separates adults from children is the ability to foresee consequences, the future ramifications of an action or an inaction. Children, like the simple, tend to be in the moment and unaware of the consequences of their actions or inaction. They are willing to let life come at them and have the love and comfort of their parents to bail them out of the scrapes and to protect them from dire consequences which occur from their inability to see into the future.

Leaders must depend upon themselves and their teams to foresee consequences and to take action.

Another aspect of leadership based upon this Proverb to consider is the idea: Is what the team doing today working towards the desired end state or what the team needs to be doing in the future?

Good leaders know where the team is supposed to be headed and what the desired end state is. If the team is spending a lot of energy and not making progress to achieving the end state, then the leadership needs to intervene and get the forward momentum moving again. The cost for spinning wheels too long is failure.

This is a lot like life--I have a dream about what I want my retirement to be like. Unless I take action to align my current and future actions to achieve that dream it will be nothing more than that. But, if I take positive action and evaluate today and tomorrow in terms of my desired end state--then my dream will become my reality!

It is hard to take control of a out of control situation--but that is the call of leadership. Leaders who are unhappy about what the team is doing are not leading. They are following or have become victims. Leaders lead. Leaders need vision. Leaders need to implement the means to achieve the vision and to overcome the dangers/obstacles on the along the way.

See the future, develop mitigation strategies, take action.

Teams: Part of Something Larger

I've been writing a lot about teams--and you might surmise that I believe teams are the major cog in what happens in the world. And while I do believe this, it is important to remember that teams have a place. I was reading an article in Worship Leader magazine recently which reinforced the idea that teams are part of something larger and that it is critical for teams to recognize their relationship to the larger entity.

I've been on a journey lately piecing together a lot of seemingly disparate things which have occurred in my life with respect to teams. I was a dedicated member of a team, and was one of the team's co-leaders, when it became apparent to me that I was not being effective and that I was creating a lot of stress for myself and the other co-leaders, with the result that the team was spinning its wheels. It was time for me to move on. I had become: "that guy." The one who never seems to agree, the one who always wants to try something different than what the team is doing, the one trying to "push the envelope" (a test pilot term) and the guy who probably became the stumbling block of the team due to having a different vision than the other co-leaders of the team. What I forgot to remember was what I read on an airplane last Saturday while zooming off to vacation in Florida for two weeks--teams are part of something larger.

Teams are the operational, or tactical level of organizations. Teams are where the work of the larger organizations happens and where the strategies decided at echelons above reality (or upper management) are implemented. Teams are the bridge from the organizational strategic level to tactical operations--where the work of the larger organization is done. To put it in military terms--teams are where the hills are taken that the generals decide need to be taken.

In reading the article in Worship Leader magazine by Glen Packiam, I was struck by the simplicity of his statement and how easy it is to overlook: "The best teams are the ones that understand that they are part of something far greater than themselves."

Think about it. I follow the Baltimore Orioles baseball team and the Baltimore Ravens football team every season. Each of these teams are part of the larger leagues to which they belong. In my workplace, the Operations Team I used to run was part of the larger organization. Success or failure was measured by how well the larger organization fared based upon its annual goals. Other teams to which I have belonged are each part of something larger and the critical factor is to ensure the teams activities contribute to the larger success of the bigger organization.

It is possible for a team to feel successful, but to actually fail in supporting the larger organization to which it belongs. The teams goals and measures of success must be properly aligned with the greater organization, else divisiveness will ensue. An old adage is that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" but in today's environment it is more often that the "squeaky wheel" gets sold off or terminated because they are not contributing to the larger goals of the organization or are consuming too many resources for the value.

Teams are the operational implementing arm of the larger organization. Team leaders must remember this and work hard to ensure that this is passed on to each of the team members and that there is a tight relationship between the team and the organization/entity to which they belong.

Believe in Your Team

Teams are resilient. Teams have a sense of purpose and along with that a sense of ability and what I call "identity." Teams project their ability--confidence or incompetence to outsiders. Teams need to believe in and be confident in themselves, that they can overcome obstacles and more importantly that they are not victims but rather in charge of their destiny and their situation.

The role of the leader is to build the team to believe it can overcome obstacles. There needs to be a sense that when working together, the team will succeed in any situation--whether it's true or not, a defeatist attitude becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The difference between the word "will" and "can" is very important. "Can" almost always has an "if" attached to it. "Will" stands alone!

Leaders who practice the philosophy of tearing down team members in order to rebuild them do a disservice to themselves and the whole team. As part of the whole process of individual development for team members, leaders need to encourage their team members to believe in their strengths and to recognize their weaknesses. Then, continue to develop their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. As a leader--using the individual strengths on the team for the good of the whole team will provide success. The process of tearing down instills doubt which may not be overcome with the result being that the team loses the benefit of the individual's strengths.

I'm an Orioles fan. And most everyone who looks at the 2008 team recognizes they are not the best team in baseball on paper. There are some glaring weaknesses--shortstop, starting pitching, catcher, and first base to name a few. At the beginning of the season the team was estimated to lose over 100 games (and they still may, but I hope not). But as of today, 74 games into the season, the O's are 2 games above .500. No one, but the O's themselves believed at the start of the season that they would be able to post success in the toughest division in all of baseball. What's the difference this year than last? They believe they can do it. Night after night as they have been coming from behind the post game reporters are hearing that the team never gives up and that they always believe they can and will win. And then someone, a different guy every night it seems, picks the team up and they win. Leadership continues to instill that kind of winning attitude and for now it's working.

In our own teams, it is up to the leader to instill the winning, can-do type of approach. Put people in position to succeed and develop the team's sense of character. One way leaders encourage this is to build the team members up and empower them to take risks--they may not always succeed, but it is in the trying and the taking of risks that people learn that they are a lot more capable that they thought they were. And in taking risks as a team, combating adversity, teams learn they are more capable than they thought they were, too.

Believe in your team--they won't let you down. Teams reflect their leadership, build them up and they will begin to accomplish what you thought was unimaginable yesterday.