|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
We are in the green age, the age of sustainability. A core principle of sustainability is the avoidance of waste. This covers many facets of the organization, but one, of course, is in spending. Conservative spending, in addition being a key practice of sustainability is a key practice of survival. Cash is an organization's oxygen, its lifeblood. When it runs out, your organization is dead.
I recommend a policy, indeed a culture, that asks every team member to run through this analysis with every potential expenditure:
In considering this expenditure…
· Is it necessary?
· Can I delay it?
· Have I shopped around?
· Is there a way I can repurpose an asset we already own?
· Have I avoided waste?
· Is there a way to leverage it?
· Have I solicited input from team members?
…understanding that we will not materially compromise our commitment to our customers or to speed, efficiency and
excellence.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Jack and Suzy Welch write a good column in Business Week (always on the last page). I love their October 22, 2007 entry: Define Yourself - Or Others Will. They write, "Make sure people know what you stand for. Under no circumstances, no matter what the size of your company or the business you're in, should you ever let the members of your team guess about your principles or why you make the tough calls the way you do. Tell them yourself, and then tell them again and again."
I particularly like his example of how Bush blew a prime opporuntity to define himself by providing little explanation for his recent veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. His silence created a vacuum, which his critics filled with their own explanation that he is cold-hearted towards children. In reality, Bush likely had a reasonable justification for his veto, but he took a further and largely preventable hit to his already tattered reputation by being silent and allowing his critics to define him. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Yesterday in the NY Times, columnist Frank Rich wrote an interesting column about how the 2008 election is shaping up. While conventional wisdom says Hillary has just about locked up the Democratic nomination, Rich says, "Not so fast!" Sure, the Republicans are looking flakier by the moment, but it is not too late for the Democrats to implode. Hillary, Rich says, is very vulnerable. According to Rich, she is mirroring Gore in 2000 in terms of fear about defining herself. "Is she so eager to be all things to all people, so reluctant to offend anyone, that we never will learn what she really thinks or how she will really act as president?" And he says her post-first lady record suggests a follower rather than a leader, citing her inability to offer a credible explanation of why she gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq, why she voted against the Levin amendment that would have put some diplomatic brakes on Bush, why it took two years into the war for her to start speaking out against it, and why she held back on describing her health care fix until Edwards and Obama unveiled theirs, thereby revealing the electorate’s hot buttons.
Some political friends of mine say the opinion of Rich is so on point that Republicans are wishing with all their might that Hillary gets the nomination. They believe she, among the Democratic frontrunners, is the most vulnerable in the general election. When push comes to shove, they say, the candidate who has the best and most immediate plan to withdraw from Iraq and who appears to be the best leader will be elected. They say Hillary is slippery on the war and more slippery in terms of several of the key traits and functions of a leader. Specifically, she lacks self-definition (intimately knowing her values, beliefs, higher purpose, and vision of the future, and expressing them clearly); credibility (possessing competency and displaying consistency and congruency in words and behavior, such that others have a deep confidence in her abilities and character); inspiring (listening deeply to others to discover a common purpose, then giving life to her vision by communicating it so that citizens see themselves in it); courageous (able to make the tough calls, perform the tough tasks, and having a propensity for taking risks); and producing results (achieving her vision in the most efficient, holistic, and measurable manner). They remind me that, while Hillary has spent six years in the Senate and eight years in the White House as first lady, her record is not necessarily one of producing results. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Some friends of mine in Washington are telling me they believe Al Gore is going to wait until Obama and Clinton bloody each other’s noses to the point that neither is looking very pretty, and then throw his hat in the ring for the Demo nomination. It’s an interesting perspective. The dude has made a fortune, something like $100MM, in the six years since leaving office, from various ventures like advising Google since before its IPO and now holding $30MM of options on its stock, serving on Apple’s board and accumulating about $6MM in stock options, launching the successful, viewer content cable network Current TV, the successful sale of the asset management firm he was involved with, Metropolitan West Financial, and the rollover of that cash into a new investment firm with over $1 billion under management, and, of course, his take of An Inconvenient Truth, his Academy Award-winning documentary on global warming. On top of this, he’s got the inside track on this year’s Nobel Prize as a result of his work on global warming. And when he left the White House, he was worth only between $1MM and $2MM.
So why would he want to give up all that interesting, creative, highly lucrative fun for the White House, which pays something like a paltry $400,000 annually and is proven to be the most powerful age accelerator known to humankind? Because he wanted the presidency his whole career, and it’s highly unlikely the desire has died. Because he has all the money now he’ll ever need. Because he seems to sincerely care about making the planet a better place and it must be enticing to have the most powerful office on the planet in his doctor’s kit. Because getting elected won’t be that difficult. Obama and Clinton will have done the hard work, which ironically includes messing the place up a bit so that Gore can come in with his voice of authority and common sense and clear it all up for the electorate. Gore might well be, in effect, drafted and it doesn’t get any easier than that.
What is his appeal? First, as I have said all along, this election will go to the candidate that is the most self-defined, credible leader and whom the electorate believes will get us out of Iraq quickly. Gore fits those two criteria the best. Second, America loves redemption. In this case, I think it is a particularly compelling story because the person who was given the presidency over him is seen by the majority of Americans as a dismal failure at best and a bad joke at worst.
In RateALeader.com, we included Gore in our presidential poll and, although traffic is at the embryonic stage, Gore consistently leads among Demo candidates.
As I keep saying, this is easily the most interesting presidential race of my life and becomes more so with each day. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
I hardly follow professional sports anymore. But in the 1980s and 1990s, I was a diehard San Francisco Forty-Niners fan. The primary reason was Bill Walsh, who died yesterday at 75. This man had all the traits and performed all the functions of the high-impact leader. He was as self-defined as they come - everyone knew where Walsh stood. He was forward thinking – he literally invented the brand of offensive football that dominated a generation and is the basis for what you watch today in football at all levels. He was credible – eminently competent, he instilled confidence in everyone around him. He was inspiring – always finding the common purpose and communicating it in a way that his players and coaches saw themselves in it. He was people-oriented – maybe not a teddy bear, but respectful of and interested in people. He was curious – constantly studying new ways to coach football better. He was focused – he could concentrate his energy as well as anyone. He was courageous – always making the tough calls and performing the tough tasks, and taking necessary risks. He was organized – the Forty-Niners were run like a machine. He was supportive – he never stole thunder from his players. And look at the number and quality of leaders he bred…the many assistant coaches and players who went on to coach successfully in the NFL and college.
He built a values-based core – everyone in the Forty-Niners organization knew exactly what they stood for. He generated ideas – one of the great innovators in the history of the game. He formed a vision – like the one in 1979 when he convinced the worst franchise in the NFL that they could become winners within a couple years. He built a plan – mapping a path from doormat to dominance. He engaged his team – recruiting the right people for his plan and then inspiring a level loyalty rarely seen anymore. He built a responsive structure – elegant in the way it almost guaranteed success regardless of the challenge. He created accountability – his players and coaches knew exactly what was expected of them. And he produced results – one of the winningest coaches in NFL history and inspiration to not only hundreds of team members and coaches but perhaps millions of fans.
Thank you, Bill, for your leadership example, as well as a lot of fun times. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
I read a couple days ago in the newspaper that President Bush has embarked on a search for reasons why his presidency is in such turmoil. It seemed almost soulful in nature, that he is truly puzzled by his current situation and deeply interested in how he got here.
And then yesterday I read that he has commuted the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted of obstructing justice and lying to federal investigators. As a result, Libby will serve no time. 72% of Americans oppose cutting Libby any slack.
Thus, I don't put much credence in the first article. I think he subscribes to a flawed notion of leadership that leaders don't waiver come hell or high water. And that history will judge him favorably because he did it, to borrow from Sinatra, his way. But this takes the principles of self-definition and courage to unreasonable lengths. Be as self-defined and courageous as you want, but if your values, beliefs, and vision are at odds with those you have been entrusted to lead, you're going to fail, just as Bush is failing. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| Whether you like or dislike his opinions, Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson is the epitome of the self-defined leader. Check out this Democracy Now! interview with Amy Goodman, and note his comments about his good friend, Mitt Romney. (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/25/1421228) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Hillary has a big problem. And I’m bummed. Five years ago, I really wanted her to ultimately sit in the Oval office. I thought she was bright and made a ton of sense on many issues, and I thought the country was prime for more feminine influence in its leadership.
Sure, she is now on the correct side - for electability purposes - of the Iraq war issue, but her path there makes me question – all right, doubt - her leadership capabilities. I have been following her position on the war closely since 2002, and there is no other way to characterize it other than 100% political. Check out the June 3, 2007 issue of The New York Times Magazine (article link), written by Jeff Girth and Don Van Natta, Jr., which squares with my notes about her over the past five years, and you’ll see a candidate who has acted like a candidate – as opposed to a leader - from the outset. First, she voted for the war in October 2003. At the time, she argued that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and gave assistance to Al Qaeda. In so arguing, she clearly did not read, although she had access to, the complete classified version of the 90-page N.I.E. report that raised a substantial doubt that Hussein in fact had WMDs or had any connection with Al Qaeda. (Senator Bob Graham read it and urged his fellow senators before the October vote to read it because it undermined the argument for war.) Just prior to the October 2002 vote, she voted against a bill sponsored by Carl Levin that would require a two-step process, i.e., seek a UN resolution allowing force and, if not procured, come back to Congress for a final vote on going it alone against Iraq.
For the next two years, she sounded like President Bush on Iraq. In February 2005, she visited Iraq and spoke about how well the war was going. She told “Meet the Press” that it would be a mistake to withdraw troops or to set a timetable for withdrawal. As electorate sentiment turned against the war later that year, Clinton went on record for the first time supporting a Demo proposal for asking Bush to prepare a timetable for withdrawal. The proposal failed, but this marked a change in Clinton’s stance.
In a letter to supporters in November 2005, she established her position that her October 2002 vote in support of the war was conditioned upon Bush’s promise to exhaust diplomatic means before using force, and Bush had not honored his promise. Interestingly, she personally met with Bush in December 2005 and said not one word about the Iraq war. This most recent explanation for her vote remains today.
What has continued to shift, however, is what to do about the situation. From November 2005 until recently, she has favored withdrawal, but without a timetable. But in May 2007, she voted against the emergency war funding bill, at least implying that a deadline is now needed. Her web site now says she supports a plan that would have troops out of Iraq by 2013.
So…how does she fare as a leader? Unfortunately, not very good. Self-defined? Hell no! I have no idea what she values and believes. Credible? No way! Stunning lack of consistency and congruency in words and actions. Personally, I have no confidence in her. Courageous? Where? All I see is her trying to figure out where the pack is and getting in front of it. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| In my experience, most leaders believe a leader is born and cannot be made. I do believe a lot of leaders are born with the leadership traits we expect in a leader, or develop those traits through the experiences of their upbringing. But I also believe a person can make himself or herself a leader, in the same way an existing leader can become a better leader, by working on developing the traits and functions normally ascribed to a leader. To think otherwise is to deny the ability of humans to change themselves and their conditions. I just can't go there. I've seen too many cases of profound changes in people, including people becoming very good leaders after putting their minds to it. So why do a lot of leaders feel the way they do? Well, here are a couple possible reasons. First, it can take an immense amount of work to become a leader and for a leader to become a better leader. Existing leaders, in our short-term-results-driven world, simply don't have the time and resources to develop leaders. They have to find ones that are already baked. Second, they might feel it diminshes their value if, in fact, anyone could be what they are and do what they do with an investment of time and effort. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Jack Welch. Oprah Winfrey. Dalai Lama. Martin Luther King, Jr. Phil Jackson. The best leaders are - or were - extraordinarily self-defined. They know what they believe in. They know what they don't believe in. They know what they want. They know what they don't want. They know where they are going. And they communicate it with clarity, conviction, and consistency. But what enables them to be self-defined? First, they are grounded in the present, unfettered by regrets and worries. Second, they think, emote, and act with clarity because they are either unscarred by the past or have blown out the negative energies of their scars. Finally, they take complete responsibility for their lives and circumstances. They became the captains of their own ships and, not surprisingly, their cast of shipmates grew...and grew...and grew.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
Inquire about booking David M. Traversi to speak or lead workshops
|
| |
 |
| |
A New Leadership Paradigm!
A National Bestseller!
Check out David M. Traversi's much acclaimed new book, The Source of Leadership™ Eight Drivers of the High-Impact Leader. Click here for more information.
|
| |
|
| |
Join The Source of Leadership™ Community
Click here to join the network of leaders and potential leaders dedicated to radically transforming the state of leadership and the performance of leaders everywhere. |
| |
|
| |
The Fruit of the Masters. Click here for our highly coveted list of recommended books on leadership, personal growth, and related topics.
|
| |
|
| |
The Source of Leadership will send you a daily tip designed to help you stay at the top of your leadership game. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
