FRESH READS
Home Tags Posts tagged with "decision making"
Tag:

decision making

Leadership

Certainty is no longer enough

by Guest Writter
written by Guest Writter
Chris Lewis, Co-author, The Leadership Lab:  Understanding Leadership In The 21st Century

There are some things every CEO is certain about. That’s what we get paid for. For instance, we’re certain that customers are more demanding now than they’ve ever been before. We’re certain that there are more things that can affect our business than ever before. We know that technology is changing faster than at any time in history. We also know that we have more data about everything than we ever had before. We also know that we’re busier than ever before in our lives.

Some of these certainties are inter-related. In a world of more data about everything, of course we have more information about well, just about everything. When we’re analyzing information, the research shows that we are using our ‘left-brain’ process. This is the one that tears a problem apart. Then it takes these smaller components and tears those apart and so on. Philosophers call this ‘The Western Reductionist Model’. It’s been with us for centuries and with more information, it dominates leadership thinking.

You’ll hear no argument from any of the great business schools or universities about the need for analysis. It’s shot through the very system that educates us. We take the process of education. We tear it apart into science and arts. Then we tear these apart into math or science or history or English literature. Our Western Reductionist model has served us well until now.

No amount of data analysis successfully forecasted either 9/11, the 2009 financial crisis, the coming to power of Donald Trump, Brexit, or the rapprochement with North Korea. Neither did it explain how our leaders managed to illegally avoid taxes, lie about emissions in the car industry, rig interest rates, shelter customers from taxes, launder Mexican drug money, preside over life savings placed into an investment fund that was in actuality a Ponzi scheme.

No, the data doesn’t inform you about Bernie Madoff because what he did was unimaginable. The same is true of the sex abuse in the Church. Or that our charity leaders would sexually abuse the vulnerable. Or that our leaders of public utilities would conspire to poison customers. All of these things are unimaginable. But why? Could it be that new requirement for the CEO is not just to be the smartest analyst in the room? Maybe we’re moving into a new age where our leaders need to have the best imagination in the room. Maybe they need to get out and talk to other people and find out what they are worried about. Imagination is after all, the parent of anxiety.

If we as leaders really care about our profession, we must start to recognize that all of the above leadership failures could not have been spotted with analysis alone. These cataclysmic events sound unlikely, unbelievable, even impossible, but they all happened in the last two decades. And they are not happening behind a curtain.

We must remember that we have more data about the world, but that it also has more about us. These events are more visible than at any other time in history. As a consequence, it is difficult to remember a time when leadership has appeared more thoroughly and completely discredited. If you have the imagination to understand what this means, then you’re beginning to understand why everything has changed.

And perhaps that’s the only thing we should all agree to be certain about.

About the Author

Chris Lewis is co-author, with Pippa Malmgrem, of The Leadership Lab:  Understanding Leadership In The 21st Century. Lewis, a former journalist, is founder of one of the largest creative agencies in the world, LEWIS. Founded in 1995, his practice now encompasses more than 25 offices and 500 staff. He is British but splits his time between Britain and America.       

For more information, please visit: www.koganpage.com/theleadershiplab   

[Image via: Tumisu/ Pixabay]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Self Governance

Get Your Mind Right Before You Open Your Mouth

by Dr. Linda Henman
written by Dr. Linda Henman
Linda Henman, President, Henman Performance Group

Why do some people trust their instincts, push forward and win, while others stumble to erroneous conclusions and then steadfastly defend their bad decisions? Why do some people rush to make bad decisions while others take their time and then make bad decisions? Whether thinking quickly or slowly, we rely on our emotions, mindset, and cognitive abilities to help us make decisions. Then, we open our mouths to let others know what that decision is. Most people would benefit from adding another step to the sequence—one that checks that we are advocating the right decision, not just the one we feel passionate about.

Unlike Malcolm Gladwell, the author of Blink, I don’t think most people should think without thinking. A select few should, but the vast majority should not. Just because we see a leader who appears to be shooting from the hip, we shouldn’t infer that that’s what’s happening.

Instead, we should realize that most people need to gather data carefully, engage others in the decision-making process, anticipate consequences, and outline worst-case scenarios before they pull the trigger—or leave shooting out of decision-making all together. For some, the process that leads to good decisions happens rapidly and unconsciously. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen at all. Unconscious processes are still processes.

When I work with executives, one of the things I determine is whether they should listen to their instincts. For some, instincts are right more than they are wrong. For others, the reverse holds true. Here are the questions I encourage people to ask about themselves and others:

  • Do I want to make this change because of the rewards it may bring or the excitement it will guarantee? (If the former, go for it. If the latter, wait). Not all great discoveries are made by gut instinct, flashes of insight, or reflexes. Some require painstaking step-by-step systems and attention to detail.
  • What does my track record tell me? Have I been happy when I’ve listened to my instincts? Too many people see logic as a painful systematic method that leads to paralysis. Consequently, they rely heavily on their instincts. However, instincts have an emotional element to them, so introduce logic into the equation. Look at results to tell you if your way is working.
  •  Do I miss opportunities because I err on the side of caution too often?  When I work with individuals who answer “yes” to this question, I encourage them to keep a log of their major decisions. As soon as they think they know the answer, I ask them to write it down along with the time and date. Then, I ask them to take as long as they think they should to get the right answer and to note that time. Usually, when they look back, the realize they had made the right call the first time, and they lost time and opportunities by waiting. The exercise builds confidence that they should trust themselves sooner and more often.

These three questions get to the core of whether people should listen to their instincts. They provide the first set of data from which you can define the gauges of success—the measures of how you will personally influence outcomes. First, you need to know what outcomes you want. Sometimes you can plan how you’ll make decision. At other times, you’ll find yourself forced into reaction mode. Regardless, clarity about outcomes remains essential to making the right decisions.

To build confidence that your next decision will be right, start with the right mindset—one characterized by logic, a dispassionate review of your experience, and appropriate risk-tolerance. Add in a sincere desire to learn and openness to new ideas, and you’ll cook up a recipe for success and better decisions.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Management

Restructuring Business to Meet the Future

by Guest Writter
written by Guest Writter
Mostafa Sayyadi, Author, Leading Between the Lines

Today‘s globalized nature of business is placing more pressure on companies to employ change management leaders who are capable to build learning companies. There are many studies that focus on the organizational factors that drive organizational innovation. Structure is one such area that plays a critical role and is a strategic prerequisite for business success in today’s knowledge-based economy.

Change management leaders can provide a better environment for employees to explore new ideas and create more knowledge. They concentrate on developing knowledge sharing and inspiring employees to generate new solutions and a better environment. Less emphasis on formalization could in turn contribute to create new knowledge, and in terms of typically written procedures and rules, restrict the generation of new ideas. Change management leaders inspire employees to reach informal agreements aiming at effectively handling the situations to some extent. They, in fact, develop more informal structures to stimulate new solutions in order to solve organizational problems in a more innovative manner. Moreover, change management leaders manifest themselves as inspirers who implement the required changes in the current status and create a better situation. Formalised structures are more bureaucratic, and this negatively contributes to the effectiveness of change management leaders in transforming existing situations and creating a better environment.

Change management leaders have been also described as the facilitators of interactions and relationships within organizations. A change management leader builds decentralized structures to enhance knowledge sharing and create a more innovative climate. This idea can be also supported by accounting for the crucial role of decentralised structures in facilitating the exchange of ideas and the implementation of more innovative solutions based on stipulating the power of decision-making around the organization. Less emphasis on centralization and formalization can, in fact, improve interactions, and subsequently generate more knowledge. A decentralised and informal structure facilitates knowledge flow within companies. The delegation of decision-making power could, in fact, create a climate that in turn develops interdepartmental communication within organizations. Decentralization encourages organizational communications, and consequently develops a climate of openness for employees to exchange their new ideas. Employees can even implement ideas through being delegated the authority of decision-making to their departments. Informal structures can also improve communication by developing the interactions among members to achieve an informal agreement to handle the daily issues and activities. An informal structure can, in fact, provide the required freedom for employees to generate new ideas and better solutions in order to handle the current problems and activities. Less emphasis on formal language could, therefore, facilitate innovation and generate more knowledge, and formal procedures and rules can restrict the generation of new ideas.

In conclusion, I place a new emphasis on restructuring business to build the best-performing companies that can create and implement innovations timely as they operate and compete in global markets. In the absence of flexible structures, organizations lose their required direction to achieve a high degree of competitiveness, and cannot implement successful change in order to adapt with today’s global business environment. Organizations have succeeded and failed based upon the restructuring of business that impact performance at the organizational level.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
LeadershipManagement

Making Tough Calls and Complex Decisions As A Leader

by Guest Writter
written by Guest Writter
Karyn Schoenbart, CEO, The NPD Group

As a leader, it’s critical to make important decisions in a timely manner. You will never have all the data, complete consensus, or a crystal ball. You just need to make the best decision you can with the information you have at the time. However, having a process for making complex decisions can help.

Recently, I was working on a major transformation effort, and it was important we moved fast. My motto was “go, learn, iterate,” which is the opposite of the old adage “measure twice, cut once.” While both have their place, a leader must know when deciding things quickly is more important than being precise, and when precision take precedence over speed. When making tough calls, I generally adhere to this process:

  1. Outline all the possible options, even those I don’t like. There are usually 3-5 options.
  2. Gather information/data
  3. Lay out the pros and cons of the options
  4. Solicit opinions from others involved
  5. Make the call

The length of time and the amount of effort expended at each stage depends on the importance of the decision and the weighting of speed versus precision. Sometimes, I can run through all of these steps in my head and be done. Other times, it might take longer to get to a point where I feel confident enough to act.

You have to accept that, occasionally, you will make the wrong call. But. as a leader, it is critical you take action in a timely manner. Sometimes, getting from 90 percent to 100 percent isn’t worth it in terms of lost time or additional cost.

Here’s an example of how my process helped me decide whether to shut down a business. Several clients had cancelled a certain service, and we didn’t know if we should discontinue offering it or continue to provide it. I first outlined all the options:

  1. Do nothing (this is an option to remember, and, while it’s often not attractive, it is worth mentioning). In this case, do nothing was to continue the service as it was.
  2. Shut down the service.
  3. Modify the service.

Next, I gathered information/data. How many clients were buying the service, how happy were they, and how much revenue did it generate? Was the service profitable?

I jotted down the pros and cons and solicited feedback from my colleagues. I uncovered a few interesting pieces of information along the way. While the service was profitable and the remaining clients were generally happy, there was a problem I didn’t anticipate: Joe, a critical company resource, was spending an inordinate amount of time on the service, taking away from more important initiatives. This was certainly a disadvantage to continuing the service. However, I also learned a huge client who buys many services from us would be very unhappy if we discontinued this particular one. This was a negative to shutting it down.

So, with the scales virtually balanced, we turned to option three: modify the service. The team came up with an approach that would reduce the frequency of the service from monthly to quarterly. This would result in lower profits, but it would allow us to decrease the burden on Joe while still providing clients with enough value to keep them satisfied.

Having a process for tackling complex decisions can help you gather the information and weigh the pros and cons.  It’s then up to you as a leader to make the tough call.

About the Author

Karyn Schoenbart is CEO of The NPD Group, a global provider of information and advisory services, and author of MOM.B.A. Essential Business Advice From One Generation To The Next. She has over 30 years of experience in the market research field, with expertise in identifying and developing new business opportunities and client partnerships. Schoenbart was named one of the Top 25 Most Influential Women of the Mid-Market by the CEO Connection.  She is also the recipient of the Long Island Brava Award, which recognizes high-impact female business leaders, and the Legacy Award from Women in Consumer Technology. Schoenbart is passionate about coaching others to greater levels of achievement. She is a resident of Long Island, NY. To learn more, visit: www.KarynSchoenbart.com.

[Image courtesy: Max Pixel]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Management

Is There Such a Thing as a Stupid Question?

by Guest Writter
written by Guest Writter

Recently, my seven-year-old granddaughter told me about an exciting day they had at her school. John Mabry, former St. Louis Cardinals player and current batting coach for the team, paid a visit to Julie’s second-grade class.

I asked Julie what Mr. Mabry’s speech had been about, but she informed me he didn’t deliver a prepared speech. Rather, he answered the kids’ questions. I asked what she had asked. “Well, I asked Mr. Mabry what his favorite color is, but some kids asked really stupid questions.”

Obviously, Julie has clear ideas about what does and does not constitute a stupid question, and if you ever find yourself in the company of someone who has spent decades in professional baseball, the pivotal question should address his color preferences. I see stupid questions through a different lens, however.

When I help those in the C-suite make pivotal decisions, we frequently discuss the role they should play in developing bench strength. Their tendency, almost to a person, is to jump in and fix things for those asking questions, stupid and otherwise. Jumping in saves time, but it also develops dependency. If you make other people’s decisions for them, why should they take on the responsibility for outcomes? And how will they ever gain the experience of dealing with consequences?

When I mentor other consultants, I encourage them to tell me what they plan to do and then to ask for my feedback. In the short run, this approach takes longer than answering their questions directly, but in the long run, it helps them develop independence.

When I coach executives, I urge them to require that their direct reports present problems in once sentence and then to ask at least two open-ended “How?” “What?” questions: “How will we protect profit margins with this bid?” “What is the competition likely to do?”

 If the boss consistently refuses to give the answer, direct reports hone they problem-solving and decision-making skills. Or, the boss learns quickly that, in fact, the person is stupid.

On the subject of stupid answers, satirist P. J. O’Rourke had this to say, “To mistrust science and deny the validity of scientific method is to resign your job as a human. You’d better go look for work as a plant or wild animal.”

I agree with O’Rourke. Our jobs as humans, and especially as leaders of other humans, is to embrace fact finding and experimentation. We can’t allow ourselves to ask stupid questions or to let others distract us with theirs.

[Image courtesy: Marco Bellucci]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
LeadershipManagement

What’s Your Tough Call Quotient?

by Guest Writter
written by Guest Writter

Walt Disney ignited a fire in the entertainment world that continues to burn brightly decades after his death. Perhaps no single figure has so dominated American, and indeed even global, popular culture the way Walt Disney has and still does. Each year, millions view Disney movies, visit theme parks that bear his name, watch Disney-branded television shows, listen to Disney recordings, buy Disney products, and read books by and about him. He still holds sway in much that has touched our lives, inspiring millions of people and generating billions of dollars.

We cannot measure Disney’s influence as a film producer, director, screenwriter, voice actor, animator, entrepreneur, and philanthropist only by numbers or encomia. However, we can state that, most notably, he changed the shape of American recreation with his Disney parks, re-conceptualizing the amusement park as an all-encompassing imaginative experience—a theme park—rather than a series of diversions, shows, or rides. He made TOUGH CALLS to open Disneyland and then made a series of additional TOUGH CALLS to create a chain reaction—a domino effect. We remember Disney as a leader whose influence went beyond his initial area of concentration. He encouraged space exploration, urban planning, and an appreciation of history, context, and perspective. In short, he demonstrated how one person can assert his will on the world and “wish upon a star”— to become the leader of the Club he made for you and me.

What could this entertainment icon, a food giant, portfolio managers, and prisoners of war possibly have in common? Each fostered success,not in dramatic responses to crises, but in the unglamorous, unpopular, day-to-day world of TOUGH CALLS. I have built a thriving business working with leaders in these arenas, observing how successful leaders approach TOUGH CALLS and how the unsuccessful ones dodge the TOUGH CALLS, make the wrong decisions, or don’t keep their jobs long enough to make another one.

Typically, executive leaders define organizations in vast, sweeping generalizations—everything a priority, so nothing a priority. Now we’re beginning to understand that only some parts of a given organization demand the TOUGH CALLS. Which parts? And why do we continue to count things that don’t count?

TOUGH CALLS has three parts. Part One debunks many of the sacred myths about decisionmaking and looks at the beliefs that drive behavior and create organizational environments. Part Two ties these beliefs to behaviors, especially a leader’s most significant actions—making or dodging TOUGH CALLS. Part Three establishes how beliefs and actions influence results and offers practical, actionable, empirically supported approaches, calling to mind the early work of Edgar Schein. Decades ago he taught that a change-oriented leader cannot produce change without measurement, but a measurement-oriented leader cannot produce change without a strategy that integrates the measurement of the change process.

Although I’ve based this book on my work with CEOs and their leadership teams, and they remain my primary audience, the theories apply to everyone who wants to face life’s TOUGH CALLS with more clarity and confidence.

Walt Disney and others of his ilk . . . Steve Jobs, Jack Welch, Lee Iacocca . . . committed the sin of making TOUGH CALLS without worrying about what others thought. They remind us that ineffective leadership seldom results from rusty management skills. Similarly, organizational disasters and triumphs usually don’t occur because of a flawed culture. Both happen when imperfect leaders fail to make the TOUGH CALLS—when they ignore the links among beliefs, actions, and results.

Philosopher John Dewey observed, “Saints engage in introspection while burly sinners run the world.” From now through December 1st, I’d like to offer you a complimentary E-copy of Tough Calls: How to Move Beyond Indecision and Good Intentions.I make this offer to honor burly sinners—those leaders who make the TOUGH CALLS because they realize failure is instructive and smart people learn as much from disappointments as they do from successes.

Please email me for your copy at Linda@henmanperformancegroup.com and put “complimentary copy” in the subject line.

[Image courtesy: traveljunction]

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
ManagementSelf Governance

The Critical Nature of Funny

by Dr. Linda Henman
written by Dr. Linda Henman

In 1974, Mel Brooks directed the blockbuster comedy, Young Frankenstein.  In the movie, Dr. Frederick Frankenstein learns he has inherited his infamous grandfather’s estate in Transylvania, along with his manuals and lab notes. After initially resisting any connection to his grandfather, Frederick becomes fascinated by the idea of creating his own monster after he discovers his grandfather’s book, How I Did It. As Frederick discovered, understanding a researcher’s conclusions often starts by knowing how he or she did it. Here’s how I discovered the importance of humor in decision-making.

I first studied decision-making while working on my PhD in 1994. I conducted long-term original research on138 American POWs (including John McCain) who had survived five or more years of brutal imprisonment. The study, under the direction of the U.S. Navy, uncovered the pivotal decisions the POWs made to stay resilient—decisions about their beliefs, identity, and life’s purpose. I didn’t expect to discover that humor had guided these decisions, but that’s what happened, and these research findings have influenced my work with executives ever since.

Before I began my work with the POWs, I had learned that most communication theorists and researchers consider the appropriate use of humor an aspect of communication competence. Nonetheless, most people most of the time cannot or will not produce humorous messages. Most people usually function as receivers rather than as sources of humor. We appreciate humor as a positive force in our lives, so why don’t more of us rely on it more consistently?

Since personality traits and behavioral repertoires differentiate high and low humor-oriented people, we know not everyone has the communication skills, personality traits, or cognitive abilities to create humor. Researchers have found links between a sense of humor and personality traits such as extroversion, lower anxiety levels, internal locus of control, and independence. They have also found a positive relationship between a person’s skill in creating humor and the ability to make a good first impression.

Therefore, we can infer the reason more people do not effectively produce humorous messages: Not everyone has the predisposition nor the communicative proficiency to generate funny thoughts—much less humorous messages. The VPOWs did have these traits, however. The personality traits of this group, coupled with their training and maturity, allowed these men to utilize humor as a copying behavior more than other groups in captivity had been able do.

I completed my work for the navy in 1998, but that didn’t end my fascination with humor. In the ensuing years, as I worked as a consultant, I have witnessed countless examples of humor diffusing conflict, building rapport, uniting people, and fostering creative decisions. That’s why I devoted a chapter in my newest book, Tough Calls, to a better understanding of how humor works. I called it “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bottom Line.” You can read the first chapter of my newest book here: https://www.henmanperformancegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Chapter-One.pdf

The VPOW accounts indicate these men formed a system that defined and encouraged humor among the group’s members. These men relied on humor not in spite of the crisis but because of it. Control is central to individuals’ health, their personal benefits, and in the case of the Vietnam POWs, their actual survival. Even if they weren’t aware of how they were using humor to help them with their decision-making, that’s what they did. From them, I discovered why the rest of us should learn from their hard-earned lessons.

About the Author

Dr. Linda Henman, The Decision Catalyst ®, is the author of six books and the founderof the Henman Performance Group, a leadership consulting firm located in St. Louis, MO. Linda helps C-suite leaders make decisions that they must get right and can’t afford to get wrong. In more than 35 years, none of her projects has failed. Some of her clients include leaders in organizations like Avon, Emerson, Estee Lauder, Kraft, and Tyson. She can be reached at www.henmanperformancegroup.com. 

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Management

Three issues that bug the Board and how to avoid them

by Guest Writter
written by Guest Writter
Ruth Saunders, Author, Marketing in the Boardroom: Winning the Hearts and Minds of the Board

Introduction

An unfortunate but familiar scenario frequently plays out.

A team comes up with a breakthrough idea that could not only drive short term growth but also ensure long-term financial stability. But once in the boardroom it all falls apart, with members exposing cracks in the investment strategy where outcomes have not been clearly outlined or supported with adequate financial projections or relevant data. Defeat hangs heavy in the room, offset with blank stares and the demand to re-write plans.

Senior managers are charged with protecting and managing the company successfully. Consequently they tend to be analytical, focused on shareholder value, risk-aware, minimizing the risk of projects failing, and short-to-medium-term focused, ensuring that the company meets its promised quarterly and mid-term targets.

People often enter the boardroom with a naïve appreciation of this, presenting and behaving in ways that reflect their own mindset.

Who’s right and who’s wrong? No one is right or wrong, but it’s important that people recognize that the boardroom is not their territory.They need to think like senior managers to convince senior managers.

In this article we look at three issues that bug the Board when being sold to – exploring both why and how to avoid them.

1. Always being sold to, never part of the problem solving

People are typically trained to build a strong set of recommendations with supporting rationale before engaging Board members, resulting in them sometimes engaging Board members relatively late in the day. This can cause Board members to feel:

  • ‘Blind-sided’ as it’s the first that they’ve heard of it.
  • ‘Sold to’ rather than ‘included in the problem solving’.
  • ‘Squeezed’ into a corner as they are only being shown one option.

In turn, this can cause senior managers to question the recommendations and so what’s, and be slow or even negative when asked for their approval.

In contrast, Board members prefer to be engaged early on in the ‘team debate’, as they feel that they have much to offer throughout the problem-solving process.

To illustrate, I asked one very elusive Board member if he would like to be involved in the next round of Board interviews. Surprisingly he said ‘yes’. Given his original reluctance to be involved I asked him why, and he said how much he had enjoyed the conversation, as ‘Ruth, all everyone ever does is sell to me, no one ever asks my opinion’.

2. Unclear why to engage

Senior managers are understandably time-starved, running from one issue to the next throughout the day. Yet many people often start their presentations with little commercial context and can be slow to get to the point, resulting in senior managers disengaging well before the punch line.

To avoid this, any presentation or discussion should start with why senior managers should engage, by setting the business context and demonstrating how the project is important for the company, as well as for each of them personally as part of the leadership team.

It should then outline what the team wants their agreement to, ensuring that the ‘reasons to progress’ are compelling and that the three to five ‘asks’ are tangible.

Additionally, people should ask senior managers for their agreement to proceed and their buy-in to the key ‘so what’s’ – as well as clarifywhat they will do over the coming weeks to keep everyone on-board.

By doing this, people demonstrate that they recognize that senior managers are time-starved, and thereby that this is a commercially important issue that they need to engage with.

3. Slow to be convinced

Managers are time-starved too, so much so that they often throw together presentations at the last minute, pulling in ‘vaguely relevant’ slides from disparate sources to try to make their case. The result can be a presentation deck that contains neither a clear story nor compelling facts.

A strong recommendation must be backed up by robust data and facts, so that each assertion is supported objectively and independently. This way, it makes it difficult for senior managers to disagree – and significantly helps convey that marketing knows and is on top of the potential risks.

In practice, this means:

  • Finding the data and facts that ‘prove’ the team’s assertions.
  • Creating charts that evidence each bullet point with ‘facts’ that help back up the assertion – these ‘facts’ can be business financials, in-market data and testing, quantitative and qualitative research, customer quotes or external case studies.
  • Building a convincing business case that demonstrates the business payback of the investment – as well as the risks to the business if the project fails.
  • Addressing any concerns that people have raised head-on, to ensure the recommendation is approved.

In summary

To get the Board members on-board, it’s important to ‘walk in their shoes’, showing them how important the project will be for the company and for each of them as part of the team.

To achieve this, Board members should be engaged as allies throughout the problem-solving process, talking with senior managers in an early stage ‘listening and problem-solving’ rather than ‘selling’ meeting, with the aim of getting senior managers’ input on what the ‘right answer’ is.

They should be clear about why senior managers should engage and what they want their agreement to.

They should write a bespoke presentation deck, with a clear story on what the recommendation is and why, and a robust fact base that makes it difficult for senior managers to disagree.

About the Author

Ruth Saunders uses her experience as a strategy consultant at McKinsey, marketer at P&G, advertising planner at Saatchi & Saatchi and market researcher at Mars Inc., to help clients be ‘On Point’. She is a marketing and branding consultant, trainer, speaker and coach. She is also the author of Marketing in the Boardroom: Winning the Hearts and Minds of the Board, published by Routledge. ruth@beingonpoint.co.uk. You can follow Ruth on twitter here – https://twitter.com/Ruth_Saunders_ and https://twitter.com/BeingOnPoint.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Management

Faulty Risk-Taking: The Genesis of Unintended Consequences

by Dr. Linda Henman
written by Dr. Linda Henman

In December of 2014, Discovery Channel aired a special called “Eaten Alive.” The program featured Paul Rosolie, a “naturalist” who planned to don a snake-proof suit and live through getting swallowed by a 20-foot-long anaconda. Apparently, the goal was to provide Rosolie the insider (pun intended) perspective of a snake’s digestive processes.

Anacondas this size can easily eat a large mammal, like a deer, so swallowing a human shouldn’t have been a problem. But it was. Even though programmers at Discovery designed a suit that would protect him against the snake’s fangs, compression, and stomach acid, they couldn’t make Rosolie look appetizing to the giant frightened snake who didn’t want to eat something that looked more like the Tinman than his supper.

To overcome the first round of bad decisions that didn’t anticipate consequences, Rosolie decided to provoke the snake into eating him. That had the intended consequence of making the snake attack, but Rosolie didn’t anticipate how much he’d hate being constricted by an anaconda, so he called in the crew to rescue him.

The story doesn’t end there, however. The December 15th edition of People reported the Discovery Channel had filmed adventurer Rosolie being eaten alive by the snake on December 7th.  The magazine went to press too soon, as we now know. When the folks at People decided to report a story that hadn’t happened, apparently no one anticipated the embarrassment of a wrong headline.

Start to finish this story is chock-full of bad risk-taking. What can leaders learn from the mistakes of the snake-bait and the folks at the Discovery Channel?

  • Ask “What guaranteed good will come of this?”
  • Embrace optimism but never at the expense of pragmatism.
  • Explore worst-case scenarios.
  • Base risk-taking on facts, not guesswork and probabilities.
  • Gamble when the rewards outweighs the risks, not when you want the excitement of the unknown.

What if Rosolie hadn’t choked? The only way for him to have gotten out of the snake’s stomach would have been for the crew to kill the snake and cut him out. Though Rosolie and Discovery touted this stunt as a way to raise awareness about the Amazon and its biodiversity, we can all agree that didn’t happen. But a snake pit full of unintended consequences sure did.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Leadership

Heroes Don’t Have Comfort Zones

by Dr. Linda Henman
written by Dr. Linda Henman

April 18, 2017 marked the 75th anniversary of the dramatic bombing of Japan that followed the attack on Pearl Harbor. On that day in 1942, at 8:20 in the morning, 16 B-25 bombers under the command of Jimmy Doolittle took off from the USS Hornet 750 miles from Japan.  In 1942, most experts found the notion of America—a county ill-prepared for any sort of warfare—making a direct assault on the Japanese superpower almost inconceivable. FDR disagreed.

Two weeks after Japan’s December 7th attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt asked the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Army Air Force to plan a retaliatory strike to boost American morale. Since the lion’s share of the US Pacific Fleet’s battleships lay on the bottom of Pearl Harbor, and American aircraft of that era could not reach Japan from the closest American base, the service Chiefs wondered how they could respond to the President’s request. Doolittle, a military test pilot and aeronautical engineer, figured out the answer.

When the group of volunteers first assembled, Doolittle informed them the mission would be highly secret, dangerous, important, and interesting—and some of them probably wouldn’t return. In spite of his candor, Doolittle didn’t lose a man, at least not then. On April 18th, eighty men, most of them scarcely out of their teens—but Doolittle in the middle of middle age—took off from a navy carrier in the Pacific.

One of the volunteers, Richard Cole, served as the co-pilot on Jimmy Doolittle’s plane. In 2010, I had the rare and exciting opportunity to interview Lt. Colonel Cole about the days leading up to the raid, his reaction to it, and Doolittle’s leadership.

Cole mentioned Doolittle had earned the title “Master of the calculated risk” far before FDR and others conceived of the raid because he consistently pushed the edge of the envelope. When I learn clients fear failure, I think of Doolittle and his Raiders. They had much to fear, yet they didn’t let dread stop them. When I asked Cole to describe the fear they all felt as they stood on the deck of the Hornet, realizing they wouldn’t have enough fuel to return, he said he didn’t feel scared and didn’t see signs that others did. Rather, they all focused on the objectives and the “job we had to do.”

Even before takeoff, the crews realized they would probably not reach their intended bases in China, leaving them the option either to bail out over eastern China or to crash land along the Chinese coast. Fifteen crews were forced to ditch along the coast or to bail out over eastern China. Most of the Raiders found their way to safety, but the Japanese Army captured eight of them and executed three as war criminals.

Doolittle thought the raid a complete failure, and he thought he would be court-martialed upon his return. He erred on all counts. The action bolstered US morale and slowed the Japanese offensive. Further, the raid led directly to what many historians now believe defined the turning point in the war against Japan. But it did something else: It demonstrated the value of embracing ambiguity and approaching threats with new thinking when conventional approaches won’t work.

The Doolittle Raid serves as a lesson for leaders about decision-making, innovative thinking, risk-taking, and overcoming obstacles to success. It also shows that successful leaders must be willing to accept innovative solutions to unprecedented problems. Only then can they create a culture that attracts people who willing to make tough calls.

Col. Doolittle wasn’t court-martialed.  Instead, his actions distinguished him as one of the first heroes of the war, won him the Medal of Honor, and positioned him to serve as a stellar example of leadership—a person who never thought of staying in or creating a comfort zone. On this anniversary, Col. Cole, at the age of 101, is the only living Doolittle Rader hero. We thank him and remember his fellow heroes.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Management

How to End Indecision

by Dr. Linda Henman
written by Dr. Linda Henman

Early in 1998, my doctoral committee met to approve my dissertation proposal. Or, at least I thought that was the goal of the meeting. As it turns out, they met to discuss all the reasons for their disapproval: My research thesis was inconsistent; I had proposed a flawed research methodology; and I had formulated inane interview questions. After the meeting, I sat crestfallen and dejected in the lounge staring into space. A fellow doctoral candidate joined me and asked about my pained look. I explained the number of things my committee had agreed were wrong with my dissertation. She broke into a smile and said, “Linda, at least you got them to agree on a bunch of stuff!”

I made the changes the committee required and then met them two months later to discuss final steps before graduation. This time I had a different mindset, however. I wanted to graduate, not write the perfect dissertation. When people started suggesting changes, I said, “There are an infinite number of ways to make this different. I want to finish it.” It’s hard to cause stunned silence among a dissertation committee, but that statement did it.

Since that day, I have seen versions of this decision-by-committee in my client organizations. They too delay results and compromise their own success by doing the following:

  • No one person owns a decision. Instead, people with different agendas think they have the right to weigh in on things that don’t fall under their purview.
  • People vacillate, not because they don’t have a good solution but because they’re unsure it’s the best possible answer. They lose time and money trying to find a perfect solution.
  • Leaders abdicate their responsibility and authority in a misguided quest for consensus. Getting everyone to agree takes too long and seldom increases the caliber of the decision.
  • Leaders fail to realize that those who oppose a decision are often the very people who will be most threatened by it.

There’s always a better way, a cheaper alternative, or a faster lane. To move beyond indecision and good intentions, we need to realize there are many good ways. Decisive, successful people don’t waste time and energy finding the perfect solutions. Instead, they realize that if they stick with a good decision, probably they will be successful.

To end indecision, we have to stop falling victim to the idea of the single “right way” of doing anything. Putting an end to this kind of thinking, by the way, will also end micromanaging when bosses realize others can discover a good way—their way—of completing a task.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
EntrepreneurshipLeadershipManagement

Are You A Smart Manager or A Wise Leader?

by Dianna Booher
written by Dianna Booher

Pop quiz here:

  • Do you sometimes second-guess yourself about decisions until opportunities pass?
  • Do colleagues and clients frequently seek your opinion on their big decisions?
  • Do you often get feedback on the quality of your contributions in meetings?
  • Do those meeting ideas produce the results you intend?

Like artists, wise leaders analyze and focus on a situation or problem. Then they decide and act. And even then, as theologian and author Oswald Chambers put it: “It’s never wise to be cocksure.”

Consider the following tell-tale mindsets and habits that help you know if you’ve moved beyond being a smart manager to becoming a wise leader:

Smart managers have facts, skills, or information. They may even have mastered a job or subject.

Wise leaders have superior mental capacity. They know how to apply information, facts, or their skills to a specific problem or situation in the right way, at the right time, for the best outcome for all concerned.

 

Smart managers often try to lead people from the simple to the complex so that everyone understands the complexities of decisions and implications of those decisions.

Wise leaders most often try to break the complex down to the simple so that everyone understands the core idea.

 

Smart managers take things apart to analyze.

Wise leaders put things together to draw conclusions and apply.

 

Smart managers like to do things their way. They tend to place great trust in their own expertise.

Wise leaders like to get input from several trusted sources. They listen with an open mind and weigh facts and ideas before rushing to reject or accept them as valid.

 

Smart managers know when to be vague—to avoid offense, questions, or blame.

Wise leaders know when an ounce of specificity is worth a ton of abstraction.

 

Smart managers communicate frequently and directly.

Wise leaders communicate frequently, directly, consistently, compassionately, and tactfully.

 

Smart managers practice self-discipline and expect their staff to do the same.

Wise leaders understand why they practice self-discipline and inspire their staff to do the same.

 

Smart managers always know how to do things.

Wise leaders always know why to do things.

 

How did you score on the pop quiz? Remember that there’s no final exam in leadership. Your team is not looking for perfection—but rather progress.

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts

Subscribe my Newsletter for new blog posts, tips & new photos. Let's stay updated!

About Nick Vaidya 

The Host Of The CEO Show at The CEO Magazine. A serial entrepreneur, whose previous roles include managing a multi-billion dollar product line profitability for Dell and an Executive with Razorfish. Nick’s work is influenced by his doctoral research in empiricism, a wide variety of business roles, and the study of the ancient wisdom of the Vedanta.

Quick Links

Contact Information

  • 8001 Weldon Springs, Ste. 100 Austin, TX 78726-4539
  • +1 (512)-910-4020
  • info@the-ceo-magazine.com

Copyright Reserved by The CEO Magazine, Developed and Designed by dFlox Solutions (Pvt) Ltd