Mirror, mirror on the wall.

There was a time when Product A was clearly superior to Product B or C.  That clear distinction allowed Company A to charge more for their product; generally secure a greater market share; and have greater influence on market direction.  These factors combined for a highly profitable scenario for Company A and left Company B and Company C fighting for the left over crumbs.

But today, things have changed radically on the local, national and international fronts.  With so many companies now producing high quality and feature-rich products and with the internet making their availability so easy, it is much more difficult to carve out that differentiation that allows for market dominance.  Regardless of your company's size or product/service, it is critical that, as the leader, you determine what key feature(s) you will focus on to deliver your message.  Then you must create the culture to ensure that this message is delivered in appropriate manner.

Donald Cooper (www.donaldcooper.com) is an internationally respected management speaker and business coach.  He frequently makes the point that without a compelling value proposition you become mediocre and irrelevant in the marketplace.

Donald explains that the old concept of USPs (Unique Selling Propositions) is obsolete.  He points out that ‘unique’ simply means ‘different’.   You could paint your business pink and you’d be unique…but not necessarily compelling.  ’Compelling’, on the other hand, means that your target customers are drawn to you.  Your value proposition is so powerful, so unique and so consistently delivered that your target customers feel compelled to do business with you and to tell others about you because you are functionally, financially and emotionally the ‘wise choice’ for them.  

Compelling value grabs your target customers, clearly differentiates you from your competitors, makes you ‘famous’...and grows your bottom line.  Donald produces a great free monthly Management E-Newsletter and I encourage you to subscribe. See the link to his website above.

To his point I would add that this is a responsibility which cannot be delegated.  To delegate is to abdicate.  That is not to say that input from your key employees should be ignored in the process, but at the end of the day the outcome is determined by the face looking back at you in the mirror. Your leadership role is complex and difficult.  But nothing else that you do surpasses this responsibility to create and sustain the point of differentiation that separates you from the masses. 

If you have found this key and have been able to communicate it effectively, you are likely winning the battle.  If you are having trouble developing this strategy, reach out.  Professional help is only a call away.

 

A virtue, not a weakness!

Leadership is not always about action.  That's a tough pill to swallow because leaders are typically a driven lot whose role demands results.  Companies and their leaders are kept on a short leash with monthly and quarterly expectations.  Long range planning is now a look at a two year strategy, at best.  The former three to five year approach holds little merit during these times of economic recovery that are routinely beset by political upheaval and other events occurring half way around the world.

With such a short focus, it is especially hard to appreciate the need for PATIENCE.  And yet that is increasingly what may leaders need to learn.  It is all well and good to formulate a short or mid term response, but simply because the time lines are shorter does not mean that results can come more quickly.  Nor can one expect a shorter time for people to learn and mature in their duties. 

It still take nine months for a child to grow in the womb.  The shortcut of having nine women being pregnant for one month each does not work.  Proper results take time.

As a leader you must recognize this critical reality.  Pushing people to mature more quickly will produce more errors than successes and ultimately it will slow down the overall objective.  So in building your goals - short term or longer - keep in mind the need to temper expectations with reality.  Some things simply take time to mature.  More often than not it is worth the wait.  If your plans and strategies are well considered they will withstand this need for patience.  If they can't then they probably would not work well even if you had more time.

So establish your objectives; allow them time to be properly understood and implemented; and avoid a 'crisis mentality' in your expectations.  Your company's culture will recognize your balanced approach and respond accordingly.  Patience is a virtue, not a weakness.

 

Listen to Aretha!

Every successful leader - those who are able to  maximize productivity amongst their team members - share one critical characteristic.  Aretha Franklin sang about it in her hit tune... R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Find out what it means to me.

Respect comes about by one of two means.  You either command (deserve and receive) respect or you demand respect.  How you achieve it defines whether or not your leadership is authentic or fraudulent and therefore whether you are able to maximize results or to simply get by.

If one demands respect it implies an underlying sense of insecurity.  The person knows that they are not as competent as they should be and they use this form of bullying to enforce their position. Rather than learn and practice the right way in which to influence - and thereby lead- others, this person insists that others respect them.

While it is true that some measure of performance will result from this style, the fact of the matter is this 'leader' will always be resented, distrusted and vulnerable.  Their leadership lacks authenticity.

In contrast, the individual who has understood that the principal roll of the leader is to serve others will command the respect of their staff because it is respect which has been earned. Typically this style of leadership results in greater engagement on the part of staff members which, in turn, leads to greater productivity. Coincidentally, this leadership style produces other positive benefits such as a healthier workplace environment and a superior corporate image. 

In today's ultra competitive marketplace, you cannot overstate the importance of  authentic leadership.  You must find and invest in those who command respect.  For those who only demand it, they need to learn the fundamentals of leadership because the train has left the station on their antiquated style.


 

The Death of Democracy

I speak from a North American perspective and therefore a similar bias.  As I understand the history of Canada and the USA, democracy was a fundamentally different hope than that which we currently 'enjoy'.  There were some principles that existed at our respective beginnings that  were based on the following assumptions.  These include:

1.  Those who sought office did so out of an altruistic desire to serve for the general benefit of the people.
2. While there were certainly differences of opinion regarding the proper approach to address the needs of the country, there was generally a measure of respect and civility in consideration of others positions.
3. There were no special interest groups who could unnaturally influence opinion through the sheer force of money.
4. The value of an individual's vote was considered sacred. (Notwithstanding the fact that women were denied the right too long.)  It was almost a sin to neglect to vote.

Fast forward through the years...what have we achieved.

1. Too often we have career politicians who are conspicuous by their inability to succeed at anything else.  They seek power for the sake of power and will say and do almost anything to retain power.  A recent and blatant example occurred in my provincial jurisdiction with the expenditure of over $1 billion by the sitting government to 'buy' seats that secured their re-election victory.
2. Governments in both countries have devolved to a point in which there needs to be an 'x' rated warning about the behaviour you should expect to encounter during a sitting of the legislature.  It isn't simply a lack of respect.  Rather it is closer to hatred for opposing views and it is often expressed in a manner that would warrant expulsion if it occurred in any of our schools or offices.
3. Money is selling opinions.  I use the word advisedly because most frequently the message is not about facts but about debasing and misrepresenting an opposing point of view.  It is done in both a subtle and a blatant fashion and  uses the various forms of media. It becomes a case of repeating the lie so often so as to become fact.  The courts have upheld this right of deception as part of our freedom of expression.  He/she with the deepest pockets now has the greatest influence on the outcome.
4. In response to the above, voter apathy is reaching a record at every election.  Often turnout is under 50% which means that majority victories are being won with only 20% of eligible voters expressing support.  Given the above, especially #3, this has the potential  to hijack an election using entirely legal means.

Who do we blame?  Look in the mirror...

I was sent the following 'obituary' and it seems very relevant.  Take a look.

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, COMMON SENCE, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

1. Knowing when to come in out of the rain;
2. Why the early bird gets the worm;
3. Life isn't always fair;
4. And maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by,

1. his parents, Truth and Trust,
2. his wife, Discretion,
3. his daughter, Responsibility,
4. his son, Reason.

He is survived by his 5 stepbrothers;

1. I Know My Rights
2. I Want It Now
3. Someone Else Is To Blame
4. I'm A Victim
5. Pay me for Doing Nothing

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

 

The more things change, the more they seem the same.

The "New`` General Motors is certainly different than the old GM in at least one very important way. New GM apparently has added a new product line.  But they have made only one vehicle.  It is the world`s largest bus; large enough for CEO Mary Barra to throw 15 people under it at one time.

In case you did not hear, GM took over 11 years to acknowledge that a $0.57 ignition switch was a problem and that its failure likely contributed to at least  13 deaths and numerous injuries.  After an exhaustive investigation, Barra announced that a `pattern of incompetence` was uncovered and that she fired 15 people and disciplined 5 others.  Stunningly, over half of those dismissed were at an executive level.

But how innocent is Barra herself?  From February 2008 until June 2009 she was Vice President of Global Manufacturing Engineering and from February 2011 until her promotion to CEO in January 2014, she was Executive Vice President of Global Product Development, Global Purchasing and Supply Chain.  She has a Bachelor of Science degree and an MBA.  Surely Barra was in a position to be aware of and to understand the issue at hand, and the solution.  After all, her staff was responsible for the engineering the products that the design group created.  And her group purchased the product that the supplier no doubt knew, or suspected, was defective.

We are not talking about an insignificant concern; it is not a case that the paint colour chips don't match!  We are talking about an issue that has caused deaths at a rate of at least 1 per year along with hundreds of injuries.  It is simply incredulous to suggest that there was no hint or rumour around the water cooler in the executive suite of a serious problem lurking below the surface.  And it is equally incredulous that Barra and others at the executive level were unaware of these issues.  The fact that half of those she dismissed were executives is confirmation that the concern had filtered up the chain of command.

Barra is now driving the bus and those 15 people that she sacrificed are just numbers to add to the carnage of this faulty ignition switch fiasco.  Make no mistake...simply because she is a woman does not mean that she has not learned well the lessons from her predecessors.  She knows how to dress in Teflon and how to point fingers at the departed.  S--t has not been able to defy gravity and to flow uphill.  In many, many respects the NEW GM is no different from the OLD GM.

In my opinion, the first responsibility of Leadership is that of accountability.  Too bad that Ms. Barra has chosen to hold others accountable while escaping the spot light herself.  This was a pattern of the old GM.  You may recall that in the fall of 2008 when GM was seeking a government bail out, the executive team that headed to Washington to plead their case, chose to take a high cost charter jet rather than fly in economy with the rest of us. They so detached from reality that they could justify their actions to themselves if not to shareholders.

GM made history in the appointment of Barra.  Unfortunately, the more things change...the more they stay the same.

The myth of tolerance

The Oxford dictionary defines tolerance as "...the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with..."

Other dictionaries suggest that 'open or broad mindedness' or even 'patience' are suitable definitions.
 

We are persuaded that tolerance is a good and noble trait.  We ought to find a way to get along with everyone in every circumstance.  What is right in my eyes may be entirely different from someone else's view.  There seems nothing intrinsically wrong with that perspective.  You know, live and let live.
 

However, it seems to me that somewhere along this path, tolerance has been usurped by its' evil twin ... indifference.   Where that happens, the graciousness of tolerance has been replaced by the inaction of those who are not willing to get involved.

 

To appreciate this difference, let me use this example.  

 

You are in a bar and someone is drinking and getting loud and somewhat disruptive.  It is beginning to spoil your evening but you are told that the person is celebrating a special occasion.  So you let it pass.  The evening progresses and the person becomes noticeably inebriated and then heads to their car to drive home.  You let them leave.  In both instances you allowed a certain disagreeable behaviour to be continued.  But were you tolerant...or indifferent.
 

The point is that in too many instances in society today we are confusing the two, often with tragic consequences.  And the confusion extends to the workplace as well.  We routinely tolerate unacceptable behaviour that we choose to attribute to stress, overwork or someone just 'being myself' or 'letting off steam'.  But if that behaviour is discriminatory, and we don't respond, can we be tolerant or indifferent?

We must have the courage to take a stand and become intolerant more often.  But being intolerant means we must act, we must  actually take and defend a position.  As a leader this may mean upholding an unpopular decision.  Opposing discrimination is not a difficult decision to defend, but there will be more subtle issues that still require you to take a stand in which indifference may seem to be preferable.

THIS is the point at which authentic leadership rises to the top.

Where do you need to stop being indifferent and instead become intolerant? 

When you can act on principle instead of expediency, you will know that have reached that goal.

Where is your leadership focus?

The primary focus of most companies has been the results - sales, margins and profits.  During this extended period of recession and slow growth, this emphasis has become even more pronounced.  Stock markets want quarterly reports from publicly traded companies and analysts forecast their expectations down to the penny.

But I am increasingly persuaded that this focus is putting the cart before the horse.  Our insistence on results has the unfortunate consequence of marginalizing the underlying fundamentals.  Specifically it tends to ignore the process taken to achieve these results.  The irony of course is that the process influences results more than any forecast.  The primary issue should not be the results, but the productivity that the environment produces.

Studies continue to show that a significant percentage of employees is disengaged at work.  Somewhere between 40-70% identified in this category.  Even at the lowest end of the range it is clear that there is a real problem because a disengaged employee is an unproductive employee.

The point is not to ask how bad things are.  Does it really matter is if 40% disengaged...or 50%...or 60%?  The point is that any level is serious and as leaders, what must we do to turn around the situation?  This is not simply an issue at your workplace.  The problem exists across Canada, across North America and around the world.  Productivity is so far below any reasonable expectation that the question that MUST be asked is 'why'.

My observation is that the problem seldom lays in the ability or desire of the employees.  Rather the primary blame rests with the leadership whose job it is to inspire their teams.  As part of this recognition it should be remembered that most of the leadership team are themselves employees looking for inspiration.  So the failure often begins at the top and washes it way down throughout the organization.

Leaders must first focus on the culture for which they are responsible.  Research repeatedly demonstrates that a negative workplace produces poor engagement, poor decisions and poor productivity.  It takes a sustained effort starting from the top of the house to effect change.  But the studies also indicate that a positive work place leads to better decision making on the part of all employees.  It also leads to greater engagement and better results.

Employees look for inspiration and opportunity to excel.  Leaders who create these settings have a much greater likelihood for success.  Once this type of environment has become ingrained you no longer are striving to achieve a budget.  Rather you are maximizing results from an inspired team that feels no limits.

None of the economic data being reported today suggests that there will be any material change to the current state of affairs.  What that means is that the winners in this economy will be the companies whose productivity is exceptional.  Growth will seldom be organic.  Rather, one company's gain will be another company's loss.  You will only out perform if your staff are inspired by your leadership.  So shift your focus from results to process and environment.  My bet is that the results will take care of themselves!