RELEGATING LEADERSHIP to HR

"Tell me it ain't so, Joe!"

It was my privilege to sit next to the Superintendent of Schools of a neighboring community at a luncheon recently. After we worked through our introductions, I asked him what his greatest challenge or frustration was at top-of-mind.

The keynote speaker at this particular event happened to be Scott Walker, the Governor of Wisconsin. Given the governor's dismantling of collective bargaining for public employees shortly after taking office, my false presumption was that I'd hear something related to that.

Wrong. This is what the superintendent told me; "People; if I could just get people to do what they're supposed to do, my life would be better."

THE PROBLEM POOL

What about the demographics of that wayward group? Was it the students, their parents? Nope. It was the personnel in the district that topped the list. Naturally he wasn't referring to the whole and I surmised it may have been his direct reports or at least those he had more occasion to be in contact with. Without relaying the entire conversation that ensued, there was a bigger picture, but I want to focus on the concern expressed by this leader because you and I know that he's not the only one faced with this conundrum.

Diane Stafford, at the Kansas City Star, wrote a short but interesting piece that appeared in our local rag's Sunday edition, entitled "CEOs want nice, flexible workers."

That attracted my attention and as a matter of fact, I sent Diane a note asking if there was more to her column than was published as it's not uncommon for papers to trim, intentionally or otherwise, because a local copywriter arbitrarily decides to. The piece was scanned and sent to Diane with my question. She generously responded and assured me that the entire thing was intact.

CEOs And MISGUIDED EXPECTATIONS

Stafford's report was based upon a panel discussion that included four executives representing different industry sectors with the audience being the KC chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management. The panel was to address two questions posed by SHRM; 1.) What kind of employees are employers looking for? , and 2.) How can human resource officials help?

Stafford summarized the responses to the first question; three that I found more curious than the remaining four of seven. They were:

               

 -  "Key People" who share their (the executives) philosophies about managing and growing their operations.

 -  "Workers who are willing to work" and show up every day.

 -  "Nice people, because you can't train nice."

To round out the sought after attributes; Rainmakers, Flexible, Bright and Team-oriented were the adjectives used to describe prospective candidates.

The CEOs response to the second question suggested that the CEOs believe that the HR departments should not only hire the right kind of people but also provide training that 'increases the value of the people we have.'" I suppose that is all well and good.

Before I get carried away here, let's assume this Q&A session covered 30-45 minutes and due to time and space constrictions, Stafford's mandate is what it is and in deference to the panel participants, the responses were probably more involved.

Being that as it may, my interchange with the school superintendent and corporate leaders I've worked with for the past decade leads me to believe that in many instances, C-level executives frequently overlook the necessity to clearly define their expectations, not only of the HR department, but of themselves!

LACK OF DEFINITION

For convenience sake, let's pick on the four who sat on this Kansas City panel.

My guess is that of the four, you may find one who has clearly defined and committed to writing what he envisions his role at the top of that organization to be. I'd also guess that you'd only find one out of four that has personally committed to writing what he or she believes the organization is and how it should be defined. The percentage doesn't change much when you add that, in all likelihood, only one executive in four has clearly defined the roles he expects his direct reports to fill. All of this, more often than not, gets poured into a "HR bucket" just as the KC panelists evidently did.

Just about every C-level executive I've worked with has all of the above in their heads. I don't know of any that mind-readers on their teams. They then wonder why the people working with them, "just don't get it." It's convenient to rest the blame with the HR folks but it's a significant, and sometimes, fatal flaw in their own leadership that leads to personnel shortcomings, lack of innovation and lackluster profitability when they have failed to make it clear who They are and what They expect of themselves and others.

IT'S MANDATORY - COACH OR GO HOME

If you happen to be a CEO, Business Owner or C-level executive and haven't committed to the reality that your greatest responsibility is to define yourself, your organization, the roles of your direct reports and then to be fully present as the one responsible for developing the team you envision your company to be driven by, well, leaving it up to someone else just won't cut it.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

Pile It On...Knock It Off!

Depending on your point of view, it'd be easier to knock the piled up snow off a deck rail or lantern top than it is to clean up a real or figurative list of things that have been put off since before the last snow storm. In these parts it hadn't snowed for some 300 hundred days. That by historical standards is unusual in itself.

Just days ago one was able to hike across a trail through the nearby river valley marsh on a sunny, typical brisk December afternoon. With a 10-day forecast in mind, the sense was this may be the last such hike for the season unless the forecasters were wrong.

When I opened the blinds to our rear deck this morning, it didn't surprise me to see that the overnight snowfall left added weight to the hanging lanterns and height to the deck rails. Perverse as it may be, one thought I had was to get out there and liberate the lanterns and knock the snow off the rails. The dilettante am I kept me from doing so.

However, it did occur to me that like a list of things that had appeared to accumulate overnight, so is the hazard of awakening one morning to realize that as many as 300-days worth of little things have remained undone.

"Procrastination is the Thief of time" is attributed to a number of different prominent literary figures over the centuries and American literary critic and educator E.D. Hirsch, Jr., who is best known for his Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know (1987) believes it is one of 265 proverbs on his list of proverbs that every American needs to know.

The big difference between a newly dressed snowscape and a leader's lost list is significant in this respect; the lanterns and rail have no need to be liberated from the accumulation while a list of even a dozen things left unfinished by a leader of others should be considered inexcusable.

THEY DON'T KNOW and IT DOESN"T MATTER

Admittedly, those that are being led may not have any idea of the number of things that warrant inclusion on this list but one thing is for sure, they know it when something that directly affects them should be but there is no visible sign that leads them to believe it is or ever has been. That's a bigger problem.

Over the years exhaustive research has been done and all sorts of remedies to cure one of procrastination or sheer laziness have been suggested. Today, we can still use the rather archaic tools of pencil and paper, notepads and such, or buy an elaborate Franklin© personal planner with calendars, color cards and stuff and beyond that go high-tech with voice recognition software and speak these reminders and "must-dos" into cyber-space. The issue with all of the above comes back to the same old thing; What to do with them then?

KNOCK IT OFF

Here's the deal; if you've allowed yourself to get away with piling things up that you know darn well should have been dealt with 300 or 3 days ago, knock it off!

We could re-circulate a 10-point "Best" list of things a leader can do to take care of business, the small and the great, but the truth of the matter is we all know what's on that list and simply need to be reminded that good and effective leaders manage to get bogged down too. Better leaders simply keep the lists short (yes they make lists) while adding and subtracting to them every new day.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

LEADING WITH A CLENCHED FIST

"Men with clenched fists cannot shake hands." - Ghandi

A competitive young COO recently admitted to me that anger gets the best of him now and then.  Being a bit older I had to think back on the people I've worked for or with that had that same tendency. None came to mind.  Now either my experience is very unusual or my memory has conveniently erased any semblance of a distinctly angry cohort, colleague or person to whom I reported.

CLENCHED FISTS

It should be a relatively easy thing to admit that we all succumb to anger occasionally but acting out or "clenching a fist" in the ring of supposed collaboration doesn't cut it. Mike Tyson, the infamous and former heavy-weight champ shared an interesting observation and put it this way; "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face." Evidently, Mr. Tyson came face to face with one or more who lead with "clenched fists."

The leader mentioned above will be meeting with me later this month, and thus, anger is on my mind. Ghandi's quote noted here, excuse the expression, struck me as did another I found nearby, "'Anger' is just one letter short of danger."

Common sense and personal experience teach us that anger, in just about any form, accomplishes little. So let's think about this.

LONG STANDING ANGER

Westerners look at the turmoil in the Middle East and sense there is a seething anger that spills out into the streets frequently and has done so apparently for thousands of years. Don't you wonder how a 12-year kid develops enough anger to pick up rocks and then passes that characteristic on to one generation after another? Historians and social scientists study and surmise but in the end it comes down to one thing, nobody is shaking hands and meaning it.

Citizens all across Europe seem to be angry too. Some say it's only a matter of time, perhaps less than we imagine, that more anger than has already been displayed in this country will overflow into the streets as well. Heck, it's already underway and recorded in the annals of recent history. People are still hanging out in Wisconsin's capitol building, not happy about one thing or another. The good news is while mobs trashed the capitol grounds earlier this year, Molotov cocktails and rock throwing are not in the order of the day.

ANGER INTROSPECTION

Workplace violence is another thing and for the sake of not allowing to go overboard on the subject, let's hope the isolated but frightful instances that appear to be on an upward trend will not escalate to the point of being commonplace or so frequent that we become sensitized, especially when it comes to corporate responsibility and leadership with a much better purpose.

This discussion can't help but call for some introspection. When was the last time anger got away from me? Was I really angry or deeply disappointed. How did the display of anger appear to others? They say I wear my feelings on my sleeve. If that's the case, did my personal assessment of my behavior align with what others experienced?

If asked, many of us would not be as candid as our COO. As he talked about that issue and responded to some of my questions about it, we both concluded that whether one of his direct reports screwed up or the company missed a significant bid, allowing anger to foment at the top, no matter how one might rationalize or justify it "is just  one letter away from danger."

THE WORST OF TACTICAL WEAPONS

James Autry put it this way in his book,  Love & Profit - The Art of Caring Leadership ; "Anger as a weapon, frequently leads to humiliation, and humiliation is the one thing no employee will ever forgive you." If prone to anger, Autry further admonishes leaders that, "You cannot afford to do something with such long-term negative impact. It will come back to haunt you more than you'll ever believe."

The truth of the matter is that somewhere along the line, we've all met with circumstances that resulted in anger being expressed toward us or the converse also being true. Anger is not only a bad deal awaiting a transaction but it may also be the weakest link in the chain of one's leadership aspirations that result in handshakes meeting up with clenched fists.

If any of this applies to you personally, as it does me, we can be reminded that open palms and calm hearts are precursors to sound,  genuine handshakes and commitment.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

HIGH PERFORMANCE DRIVERS

" What is the most important Driver leading to a High Performing Company?"

Unscientific Polling

Just in; the results of a poll I conducted via LinkedIn and distributed for respondents at Twitter and Facebook. Seventy-one percent (71%) expressed their confidence in PEOPLE, fourteen-percent (14%) in STRATEGY, and fourteen-percent (14%) in CULTURE  while none placed a marker for SYSTEMS.

First off, the poll was grossly unscientific as only 14 responded.

Assessing the Results

One could come to a number of conclusions as to the small sampling. For instance:

        - The highly-charged political season wasn't a good time to initiate a poll, i.e., "poll fatigue"

2      - The wording of the poll wasn't structured effectively utilizing SEO strategies

3      - The four options given were too broad

4      - While my personal Twitter followers and Facebook friends are few, my LinkedIn network links me to

           nearly 8 million - LOL - most busy leaders have better things to do!    

Admittedly, a pollster I'm not, so, I'll concede points one through three above. More than anything else though, I am curious about No. 4. The poll sat out there about a month and I re-submitted it through all three pipelines weekly. Only three of the respondents took time to comment.

Learning Curve

The learning curve taught me several things:

·         I did something for the first time and it didn't hurt

·         I've acquired a new appreciation for pollsters

·         Others didn't care about the subject, dislike polls or prefer much deeper, intellectual challenges

·         Had those who responded left their names and contact information, I'd invite them to come together and have a meaningful discussion on the topic . Just think what else we would learn.

The other significant lesson here rests in the notion that likely all four of the choices as selections are merely a starting points. Beginning with these proposed Drivers, most companies should be in a position to chart a course or map their route to the High Performance Company status. Of course there are alternative starting points.

Engage with High Performance

The mistake for any of us as individuals or business leaders is to assume we are High Performing Leaders of High Performing Companies when in fact, we haven't ever given it a thought. If that is the case, isn't it time to engage yourself, your teammates and stakeholders in the pursuit of High Performance? Perhaps you too will be doing something for the first time...and it won't hurt.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

25 Years and Then Some...

From Carter to Obama and a Sense of the 'In-Between'

The events of this very day and the commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the October 19, 1987 stock market crash gives impetus to the reflection of those of us who were there then and are alive to talk about it now with decades of perspective in hand.

THE EVENTS OF THE DAY

This evening, Americans in an uncertain number will watch the final of three presidential debates between incumbent Barack Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney. Pundits and historians both have highlighted correlations between Carter and Obama; the former presided over a morose economy and evidently was incapable of turning it around. Historians have saddled Carter with a legacy of a disastrous foreign policy despite certain accomplishments. Those paying attention see the current president's term as a sort of Carter Déjà 'vu. Never mind the 'why-fors.'

Today, Why I Left Goldman Sachs; authored by one Greg Smith, is being released at your favorite book store and online. Smith, a former mid-level 'deal-maker' that reportedly earned a half million dollars a year, created quite a stir when he submitted his story, as an op-ed, to the Wall Street Journal. The author claims the book is not meant to be a tell-all expose but rather a composite lesson meant for unwary investors. I haven't read it but critics and insiders are dismissive. Go figure.

What may overshadow both of the above is the Monday Night Football contest between the Chicago Bears and the Detroit Lions. What could be more symbolic? The president's hometown team doing battle with the city whose major industry he saved, or some say rescued, is likely to dilute the viewing audience of what is indeed a crucial debate for both men.

STARTING POINT

Ronald Reagan swept the November election in 1980 over Jimmy Carter by taking 44 states and 489 electoral college votes - a landslide. Reagan began is eight-year stay in the White House in January of 1981, the year I began my career as a stock broker with a blue-chip regional firm. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had spent 70s below the 1,000 mark and the economy had been languishing for nearly the previous decade. Back then, there weren't such things as Investment Advisors, Certified Financial Planners and other so-titled financial professionals. We were stock and bond brokers, and proud of it.

Mutual funds were just beginning to come into vogue. The old pros, our mentors then, looked upon packaged products and funds as cop-outs or short-cuts and were dismayed with the burgeoning proliferation of such. They believed that if someone wanted to be a member of their community, they had better know how to pick a stock and value it properly. The same was true of bonds.

Warren Buffet's publicly-traded Berkshire Hathaway shares traded in the open market for around $2,000 a share. My brother and I discussed putting our resources together with the purpose a buying a share. With our careers just underway neither of us felt we could afford to do so. On this Monday morning, that same share, yes one share, is trading at $133,222 each. We could have each at least put one of our kids through college, maybe one and half kids.

WALL STREET INGENUITY AND PACKAGED PRODCUTS

It was in the late summer of 1982 that the stock market and the economy began its upward climb. Wall Street kicked into high-gear. There are very smart and creative folks out there and one thing the industry has been particularly good it is creating concepts, products and financial advantage or at least the perception of it.

Do you remember Collateralized Mortgage Obligations or CMOs? They 'hit the street' sometime in 1983 and were to be the answer for investors to benefit from falling interest rates. Essentially they were complicated instruments comprised of a pool of mortgages that were purchased by Wall Street firms from their issuers, the mortgage lenders. Segregated into tranches of varying risk, CMOs took on a life of their own and were placed first in the hands of institutional investors such as pension funds and large foundations. It didn't take long though for Wall Street to sense as great an opportunity to create retail CMO products for distribution to individual investors as well. This despite the inherent risks embedded in them:

                Prepayment Risk | Interest Rate Risk | Reinvestment Risk |Default Risk

Brokers were paid well to place these investments with their clients.

A few years later, the now defunct Wall Street firm of Drexel Burnham Lambert introduced Collateralized Debt Obligations or CDOs. Similar to their predecessor CMOs, CDOs were complicated baskets of debt obligations, once again carved into tranches or varying degrees of risk. If you don't have the recollection of Drexel et al in particular, you might recall the name, Milken. Michael Milken is widely associated with the ever-popular Junk Bonds that were issued regardless of credit worthiness. These were used largely to fund mergers and acquisitions of the late 80s that culminated in the October 19, 1987 stock market crash, a crash of greater breadth and depth than the October crash of 1929. Milken, by the way, spent some time in the slammer later for various securities violations.

BEYOND THE CRASH OF '87

Those who were in the business on that October 19th date twenty-five years ago haven't forgotten it. They likely remember exactly where they were and how the Dow's free fall impacted them and their clients. Some brokers took their own lives, jumped out of windows. My guess, and it's an unfounded guess, is that those who lost the most money for their clients were those who made an extraordinary amount of money selling packaged products and the latest ingenious financial tool Wall Street had to offer. For this, Wall Street is not entirely to blame. I hold equally as responsible unscrupulous brokers, purveyors of promised high returns and investors themselves that did not take the time to carefully examine and understand what they were investing in.

THE DEMISE OF GLASS STEAGALL

The Banking Act of 1933, more commonly referred to as the Glass-Steagall Act, came into being following the stock market crash of 1929. Its intent was keeping banks from intermingling their lending operations from underwriting and selling far-riskier things like stocks.

Beginning in the early 60s however, banks and brokerage firms began to court each other once again. Thirty years later, Bill Clinton deemed the Glass-Steagall Act irrelevant for modern society and backed the bill to render it so with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill of 1999. With virtually all barriers removed, banks moved aggressively to participate by acquiring money management firms, brokerage companies and investment banking operations. It took only seven years for the sub-prime mortgage crisis to unfold and unfold it did. Connect the dots.

FIGHTING BACK

No one individual or administration is responsible for this. The financial markets have managed to rebound in significant ways for more than 200 years now. There are many who believe that will be the case today and in fact, if you separate the stock market from the economic reality, you'd have to admit that the stock market has done quite well since Mr. Obama took office.

What I find so interesting, however, is that given the 25 to 30 history we've consolidated here, we can't seem to uniformly grasp that capital formation and investment in entrepreneurs and those willing to invest with them has always been the precursor to a better economy.

I noticed a You Tube video on LinkedIn the other day posted that made a good attempt of explaining why Mr. Romney's 14% tax rate, given his capital investments in less than three minutes. Whether you agree with the overall purpose of LinkedIn or not, another person who evidently also viewed the video complained by inference that it had been placed on the sight for political reasons. He didn't think it should have, saying, " I truly hope the next 30 days on LinkedIn stays about business and networking."

Tax rates are integral to business, perhaps not to networking so much, but the day we separate one from the other, as of no consequence, may be the day we're all essentially working for the government. Heck, we're only five or six months a year away from that anyway!

So that's what I've been thinking about this Monday, the Twenty-second of October, Two Thousand and Twelve.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

Bennett's Bug

Is the business and management advice we're bombarded with every day better or changed in significant ways?

Only a few people that know me and knew Peter Bennett may relate to the sense of yesteryear that overcame me as a 1963 Volkswagen 'Bug' with that classic sea-foam green paint job rumbled past me while heading home from my bike ride today.

Peter owned more than one of these iconic roadsters but it was that sea-foam convertible that takes me back on the highway of time. Stuart Cook had one too but his was white. Monique Mendoza's folks let her use their red hard-top until we got broad-sided in the middle of the intersection of Masonic & Oak at the Panhandle in San Francisco one dark, late night. The guy that hit us came from the Haight-Ashbury at a much faster speed than we had figured. No one was seriously injured even though the 'Bug' flipped on its side. Mendoza's 'Bug'  died that night but Bennett's rolled on.

Bennett was the most creative writer, lovable, moody, out-right hilarious guy I had ever met. This time with Bennett and Mendoza, et al, was San Francisco at its best, circa 1970. Bennett though turned dark and Mendoza moved on, as we all did. No one really knows what pushed Peter to the edge of curiosity or despair when we learned that he took his own life just few short years later.

This isn't about morbidity. This is about a question that has been dogging me for the past month or so.

"Is the business and management advice we're bombarded with these days better or changed in significant ways?"

The sight and sound today that reminded me of Bennett's 'Bug' provided the kick in the pants I needed to sit down and deal with it.

My business 'teeth' were cut on the writings of Peter Drucker and Benjamin Graham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Graham). My dad's oldest brother, the financier in the family who is still alive today, presented me with Graham & Dodd's Security Analysis [Graham and Dodd. 1934. Security Analysis: Principles and Technique, 1E. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. ] when I embarked on my career in the securities industry in early 1981.

Notable investors alive today, Buffett, Gabelli and untold others are listed among the many that were influenced by Graham & Dodd. While the underlying principles providing support for Graham's understanding and shared insights remain largely intact, few dispute that the nanosecond-type speed with which markets move today has altered the once revered approach to long-term, asset value investing that Warren Buffett would credit most of his success to. That time-honored strategy is being challenged in ways Buffett could not have imagined just a few short years ago.

Peter Drucker was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Drucker) a notorious management guru of sorts. His 1971 book, Drucker on Management is probably the first of his books I read. Drucker's first was published in 1939 and he continued to influence managers until his death at age 95 in 2005 at his home in Claremont, CA, the same neighborhood Mendoza's 'Bug' lived in before it met its demise.

Not everyone agreed with the positions Drucker took and he out-and-out managed to irritate and sometimes anger those companies he critiqued as case studies from the "how-not-to-do-things" perspective.

Recently Stephen Covey left the scene but think of those whose thoughts and management insights led many of us through the past 25 or 30 years; the likes of Maxwell, McKay, Peters, Autry, Welch, to name only a very few. In many respects I've found the insight and advice that come from the 'old school' timeless. The professors, if you will, from Graham to Covey are among them. Dust off one of the old books and take a ride in Bennett's 'Bug'.

This is not to criticize the abundance of useful thought and leadership techniques that have required re-tooling these days. My mornings begin with a rapid walk down Twitter and LinkedIn Avenues. The traffic is fast; coming and going at speeds difficult to judge. Few of us keep up. Not a day goes by that something very new, very fresh and very fast, gives me the sensation that I might have read something like it before. It's merely the difference between Bennett's 'Bug' and a turbo-charged Passat - seat belts required.

One can't help but be impressed with all this knowledge flyin' around and the ease with which a question can be answered or a desired executive skill set can be found. It's a fascinating time. I tell those I have an opportunity to influence to read, apply, and share their abundance but in the midst of all of this, take trip back now and then. The ride in Bennett's 'Bug' may be as classic now as it was then.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

University and Tech Schools - Do You Know Who Your Customers Are?

The other night my wife, two other colleagues and me had the privilege of dining with 82-years young, #PeterSchutz, retired CEO of Porsche AG Worldwide following fascinating rides through both Caterpillar and Cummins Engine.

A graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology, the German-born Schutz returned to Germany to lead Porsche from 1980 until 1988. The company was in the midst of its first money-losing year in 1980. During the Schutz tenure, Porsche's worldwide sales grew from 28,000 units in 1980-81 to a peak of 53,000 units in 1986.

Peter is one of those individuals that you expect to learn something from and I may as well add, he works his audience like you'd expect -  as a demanding but congenial educator would. Finishing his salad, he posed this question; "Who would you say a college or university's customer is?"

That "deer in the headlight" look came over all four of us who sensed we had been sucked into the vortex of a trick question. What seemed to be the obvious answer swung between either the parents, the students or whoever was actually paying the tuition bill. The restaurant was noisy but even so, when Schutz blared, "No, of course not! The customer is industry, it's business and commerce - the folks that use the "product" these schools are supposed to be manufacturing!" One sensed we weren't the only ones on the receiving end of this hearty proclamation.

Schutz puts forth a convincing argument based on the premise that schools of higher learning don't get it. He used this example for the purpose of creating the analogy that correlates to many businesses that don't really know who their customers are.

Once introduced to the notion that many schools and educators, (some of my best friends are educators) misdirect their good intentions toward their perceived customers, the students or their parents, you have to think about that for a minute. In context, the manufacturing analogy is also fair. Institutions of higher learning that misdirect the shaping of curriculum to meet the demands of the "raw materials," their students, rather than those that will need and be willing to pay handsomely for the finished product are likely turning out goods with a very short shelf-life, if at all.

We're aware of the labor statistics today and while many businesses are reluctant to hire, given the pervasive economic and regulatory uncertainty, there are also millions of job postings and opening all across the country.

The morning after our dinner with Mr. Schutz, I spent four hours with thirty executives, business owners and CEOs who were asked what their greatest challenge at the moment happens to be. I'm guessing you've been in similar company lately and you know what the vast majority of them say. "We cannot find the talent and experience coupled with the requisite work ethic to fill the openings we have. If we could, we'd be hiring." I've heard this mantra for several years now. I spend more time reading the job postings in the local classified ads than I do the sports page or comics. I'm fascinated with this paradox.

I listen to those who say, "I can't find a job" and have come to appreciate that in as many cases as not, it is often a lack of proper training or of course, a lack of willingness to either work or be "re-tooled."

This brings us back to the big question. Do institutions of higher learning really know who their customers are? If the charge that schools are not turning out good "products" is at all true, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the folks running these schools ought to be thinking seriously about what their mission and purpose is; just as any business must do in order to survive and succeed?

Peter Schutz learned this lesson earlier in his career when the company that employed him as an engineer perceived that the customer that paid for the trucks and engines they built was the company that wrote the check. They were wrong. The real customer was the person who drove the truck that sat on top of those powerful engines. It wasn't until they came to understand that reality that they were able to separate themselves from the pack of competitors, who, for any number of reasons, had almost put them out of business.

There are great schools in this country, some of the best in the world. However, Schutz likely is not the only one in the room who is asking the question of these great schools and perhaps your business too... "Do You
Really Know Who Your Customers Are?"

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

COFFEE, LEMONADE or HAM 'n EGGS

...The Path to a Better Network

Years ago my face became recognizable to folks in the region due to weekly guest appearances on the local "News at 5" hour with the station's anchor.  It was a great time, a lot of fun but also a commitment that I was unable to continue after several years.

After a while though, one thing about it that un-nerved me, from time to time, was that frequently walking through airports, be that Chicago, Minneapolis or Atlanta, someone from the 'Hometown' would recognize me and approach as if we were best of friends. The same thing would happen in the local hardware store. Admittedly, at times this just out-and-out spooked me!

THE LEARNING CURVE

As we all work at trying to adapt to this worldwide networking experience, we find ourselves wondering about the up and downside as we learn. My LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook pages all include a personal photo. With the former experience in mind this was something that didn't come easy. Then again, it was obvious that if there was any possibility of turning these virtual relationships into meaningful, trusted relationships as one LinkedIn 'guru', Wayne Breitbarth www.linkedin.com/in/waynebreitbarth suggests, those I hadn't yet met, but intended to, would have to be able to put a face to the name.

Breitbarth has a good amount of advice relative to building a network of folks you know and carefully selecting those you don't really know as those you may or may not decide to have in your network. His book, The Power Formula for LinkedIn Success, is on my recommended reading list.

Bear with me for a moment, I'll connect some of these dots in a bit.

CONNECT THE DOTS - WITH PURPOSE

Joe Sweeney, the author of Networking Is a Contact Sport, http://www.allstarnetworkinggym.com/, among a great many other things he lives by and teaches as a basic tenet is that networking must be an exercise in giving rather than receiving. Of all the insightful things Joe shares in this book and his webinars, this idea turns the old notion of attending Chamber of Commerce  'After-5 Meet 'n Greets' to build a professional network on end.

This morning, as I decided to do every morning of late, is to spend "A Minute with Maxwell." John Maxwell just gets a minute of the sixty I spend perusing the latest from a vast network of great thinkers, friends, and those connecting with one another. Today's "AMWM"  inspired this blog, for a number of reasons. http://johnmaxwellteam.com/connection-2/ 

WHY SHOULD I?

Some time ago, it occurred to me that in order to really be able to create value for others along this networking path, it wouldn't make the most sense to send a bunch of people I may not know the default "I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn." The primary reason why was that being the recipient of such left me asking the question, "Why should I?"

Two things came to mind that would be incorporated in my efforts, 1.) When I came across someone I did not know but would like to get to know, if only by way of LinkedIn for instance, the default available was abandoned and a personal note of some sort was attached to the request instead, and 2.) When an invitation to join someone's network came my way, particularly if I didn't know the person, my choice was to send them back a note and in so many words, ask the question, "Why should I?" It was my desire to know why they sought me out, who may have suggested they get in touch and most importantly, what could we do to be of mutual assistance to one another? Those that came back with a response have come into my network, those that did not, have not.

Where it has been practical, say within a 60-mile radius, my invitation or response has included the notion that it would be a great idea if we, the human beings attempting to initiate a new relationship, would agree to meet for a cup of coffee, a mid-afternoon lemonade or ham 'n eggs. I'm telling you, this is what has changed my world as dramatically as anything. Take the virtual to reality trip yourself. I guarantee that it will enrich your life!

Returning to my concern about being recognized and thought of as a friend; it happened to me the other day on my way into an Office Depot. Someone in my network, that I hadn't had that cup of coffee with yet, greeted me as if we'd known each other for some time. The experience was gratifying this time and it reminded me that I've plenty of work to do in continuing on the path the turning this virtual world we've welcomed in many ways, into an ongoing adventure of connecting with one another for all of the reasons we'd like to think are good, very good.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and

Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

Stay Out Front of Your Board

A company that is large enough to have a full corporate board, or at a minimum an advisory board of sorts, also has an Owner/Operator or CEO that tends overlook the need to think out in front of board members who may ask that one big question that wasn’t anticipated - asked appropriately at a moment that it was least expected.

A good board member is going to do just that; not for the sake of being troublesome but for the sake of making sure that the operator is, indeed, having all of their answers questioned. The operator is accountable and should welcome such probing questions and yet, in my experience, many leaders live in a “vacuum of hope.” 

They hope the question that needs to be asked is not, or they haven’t bothered to take the time to think out front and honestly assess whatever weak link may exist in the performance, plan or objective being discussed

An exercise that my client CEOs are asked to complete is the “Five Questions - Either Way” below:

A.      Create 5 Questions you, as a board member, would ask a CEO that could be used to make sure all of her/his Answers were being Questioned;

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)

B.      Create 5 questions you would not particularly want to be asked if you were the CEO.

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

5.)

How did you do? It wouldn’t hurt to keep this challenge out in front of you as a tool to prepare for every board meeting.

Board members are there for the purpose you’ve asked them to participate in and they have a responsibility, should have the intellectual curiosity and the desire to assist you in making better decisions, with better results.

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and

Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

Who Won the 19th Medal?

Do you suppose Michael Phelps’ 4x200 freestyle relay teammates shared his purpose, his pursuit of that 19^th Olympic medal?

One way or another, they did. The most recent, a gold medal followed on the heels of a silver. By most accounts that silver medal should have been a gold -  had he not fallen back on an old habit of gliding rather than pushing for those last few milliseconds, losing by 0.05 of a second in the ‘200 butterfly.’

The USA team took the relay in what appeared to be an effortless manner.

The press reported it this way, “The relay wasn’t close.” Quoting Phelps, “I told those guys I wanted a big lead…You better give me a big lead (grinning widely) and they gave it to me…I just wanted to hold on and I thanked them for being able to allow me to have this moment.

It may go without saying that, as individuals, each member of that team had their own reasons for meeting the challenge but, at the same time, all had a shared purpose and shared fate. The met it head-on in London.

John Langhorne, in his book, Beyond Luck, enumerates certain characteristics that successful leaders share and in his words, “They create a purpose.” Of course that’s not profound as many have spoken and written on the topic in a variety of ways. Add to this statement, Langhorne wrote, “Leaders build motivation by communicating a mission, a sense of direction or even a small set of explicit goals” and the thought process comes full-circle.

Phelps did that. Successful leaders do it as well.

Clarity of purpose and clarity of fate go hand-in-hand. “Here’s what we have to gain and here’s how we’re going to get it,” is the charge that must, at the same, include an understanding and clearly communicated, “This is what it will look like if we lose or fail to execute the plan.” Obviously, a well thought out plan has to exist along with the clearly defined shared purpose and shared fate.

At the Saga Institute, Don Schmincke has spent years researching shared purposes and shared fates both of peace-time and war exercises. High Altitude Leadership puts his findings in the context of what it means to business and how leaders frequently fail to communicate and clarify this notion of shared purpose and shared fate.

Gliding along to a well-defined finish line doesn’t cut it. Phelps can attest to that.

First Coast News

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/266690/483/Michael-Phelps-swims-into-Olympics-history-with-19th-medal

John E. Langhorne

http://www.beyondluck.net/john-langhorne/

Don Schmincke

http://highaltitudeleadership.com/pages/Don_Schmincke.php

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results. http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimnaleid

EXPULSION – When Attitude and Aptitude Are Not in Sync

“We hired attitude and trained aptitude,” is what Bob Kierlin, founder of the Fastenal Company, shared with Keith McFarland www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGjkTJj295s  in an interview while doing research for his book, The Breakthrough Company, published in 2008. [Crown Publishing Group]

Those familiar with the Fastenal story and who have known or have had the pleasure of listening to Kierlin talk about the extraordinary success of the company and its people understand what Kierlin meant. The company has enjoyed tremendous growth since its IPO in 1987 and few will disagree that is in large part due to the insight of its leaders but then they will credit the folks they hired with an attitude and aptitude to learn and be trained. But what of the mistakes – those who appeared to have the right attitude but in reality, did not?

McFarland studied 7 thousand companies and chose 9 to highlight as case studies in his book. Most shared Kierlin’s philosophy in one form or another. On this topic the author noted that, “There are times when this filter fails and people who just don’t fit join the organization.”

The Staubach Company (founded by former Hall of Fame quarterback of the Dallas Cowboys) happened to be one of the other eight case studies McFarland undertook. A Staubach official told McFarland that the moment it is clear that an attitude judgment was incorrect on the front-end, leaders must recognize that “If someone pollutes the organization and compromises its values and character, you have to have the courage to make those hard decisions even if, in the short term, it costs the company money. In the end, the organization is better off for it.”

No startling revelation here and yet, making such a move tends to be more difficult than it sounds for many. No one likes to admit the mistake to begin with but you wouldn’t be surprised to learn many find it painfully difficult to expel “the contagion” as soon as they should.

Visiting with Steven Blue, CEO of the Miller Felpax company in Winona the other day, we spent a few minutes on this subject, one dear to Steve’s heart. He’s written about it in his recent book, The $10 Million Dollar Employee.

The book’s cover lead reads, “When you most toxic liability meets your most important customer…”

In the book’s final chapter, entitled, You Deserve the Company You Create, Steve reinforces the idea that, ultimately, it is the CEO that must not allow “bad apples” to hold a company, any company, any size, hostage. http://www.stevebluewebsite.com/steves-books/book-reviews/

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and

Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results.

Who are the Big-Thinkers on Your Team?

If it’s not obvious, you may want to find out who they are.

It most cases, it goes without saying that CEOs, C-Level Leaders and Owner Operators give credence to the general idea that they would like to have at least one other Big-Thinker on their team. The “general idea” is only that because there are just as many business leaders who, quite frankly, may not be willing to admit that they really aren’t all that comfortable with Thinkers Bigger than they are.

Recently, in an exercise with a group of leaders like those mentioned above, the question that we first put to them was, “If you had the authority, the resources and all of your answers questioned; what direction would you take this company?”

Read and think about that question again. Perhaps like many of those we asked, the first thing they did was question the question. Others wanted to re-word or re-structure it. Convinced we had juxtaposed some of the words, most wondered about having “all of [their] answers questioned” and inappropriately concluded the question needed fixing. It didn’t and that is the way it was meant to be asked.

You may have the authority to decide whatever it is that confronts you, but you may not have the resources. You may have the resources at your disposal, but you may not really have the final say. Perhaps there’s a board, advisers, bankers, a partner equal or otherwise. The point is; have you had all of your answers questioned? Let’s face it, you are smart. You are a risk-taker. You hold a position that calls for leadership and decision-making and you are willing to accept the responsibility and ultimately, the accountability for the results. Even so, there is that lingering apprehension that ought to be present for the purpose of making sure you’ve had all of your answers questioned. There may be a number of methods at your disposal to get that accomplished and yet, far more leaders than yourself frequently overlook the need to do so.

Back to the other Big-Thinkers in your organization – do you know who they are? Do you want to? Let’s assume you do.

[If you are not having regularly scheduled One-to-One sessions with your direct reports, it could very well be that this isn’t going to be an effective exercise.]

We asked our group of leaders to pose the question, exactly the way it is worded; ““If you had the authority, the resources and all of your answers questioned; what direction would you take this company?”

Most gave their direct reports an opportunity to give some thought to the question either by setting it up as an agenda item for their next One-to-One or by memo as a separate item for discussion. As suspected, few of those asked were Big-Thinkers in the context of what is being sought by the question. Most were unwilling to breakout and go Big - go fearless in the quest of leading the company down a path that simply had not been considered. The majority patronized the so-called Mission Statement or framed up previous management topics with new words and colors, but nothing really new or innovative.

The results were as expected. Big-Thinkers are hard to find but they are there. Don’t kid yourself. There are Big-Thinkers all around you but it takes time and effort to encourage Big-Thinking. You’re the only one that can make that happen and if, to this point in time, you haven’t embedded that objective in your corporate culture, the only hope you have of mining the Big-thinkers ideas is to start with yourself and answer the question. Then go mining for the Big-Thinkers in your organization. You’ll find them.

The link to a recent Ron Ashkenas blog posted at the Harvard Business Review online addresses the subject well.

http://blogs.hbr.org/ashkenas/2012/07/ten-ways-to-inhibit-innovation.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Jim Naleid is a Life-long Entrepreneur, Change-Agent and Thought Leader, Managing Director of Naleid & Associates and a Regional TEC (“The Executive Committee”) Chair leading a group of executives to become Better Leaders, Making Better Decisions with Better Results.

The Innovator-in-Chief

Drawing Big Ideas From The Deep Wells Of Your Team Isn’t So Easy After All

Nine out of ten CEOs think of themselves as the Innovator-in-Chief at their respective companies but not all of them are comfortable with that position while many relish and go out of their way to protect a somewhat iconoclastic perception.

Many I have worked with, in one way or another, bemoan the fact that while they often carry a sense of responsibility and self-induced pressure to take the lead in innovation, they quietly wish they could drive some bottom-up innovation now and then. When asked, “So what are you doing to make that happen?” It is not uncommon to get a blank look in return. After a moment of thought, they might add, “Meetings, round-table discussions, break-out sessions during our quarterly meetings, team building exercises and all the rest, you know; the usual stuff.”

There are two big problems with this; 1) The CEO acts as facilitator in these circumstances rather than a fully present participant, and 2) The sessions are much too infrequent and when real innovative ideas surface, there usually isn’t a participant that has the authority to commit resources or “place the bet.” It is here that innovation atrophies from the bottom and eventually relegates itself to anonymity.

Vijay Govindarajan and Mark Sebel hit the nail on the head. http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/05/who_in_your_company_can_say_ye.html