It doesn’t really matter what you know if “how you are” can’t deliver it

Leadership is the same as it was 1000 years ago. While there are hundreds of ways to define it, and can be applied almost anywhere and anytime, the principles of leadership remain the same. These same principles were employed 2000 years ago by Jesus Christ; over 200 years ago by George Washington; and by Gandhi, Churchill and King in the past century. Sadly, men like Hitler also used these same principles. Leaders, great and small, will be using these same unchanging principles, in the future. Leadership is like mathematics. The inputs or variables can be changed, but using the right formula – that never changes - will always deliver an expected result.

Regardless of the definition and application, there are a couple of undeniable facts about leadership, which are always present:

• Leadership always involves people
  
• Leadership must involve a vision, expected end or result, or goal
  

While the first point seems to be obvious, if we are to look inside any organization, I guarantee that you will find at least one (probably many) that do not realize this. Involving people, means seeing every person as an individual with hopes, dreams, strengths and value. The opposite and unfortunate view of people is one of pawns, machines, assets and parts of the business that are easily expendable.

If the above is true - that the principles of leadership are constant and unchanging - and I submit that it is, why do so many fail to understand them? Should we not all be able to simply view the lives, habits and principles of other great leaders that have gone before us and then emulate what they have done? Countless books have been written on the leaders of the past. We quote them constantly. We study everything about them. Yet despite all of this, a massive void in leadership exists in many organizations and businesses.

I remember when the book Good to Great by Jim Collins came out. The executives in the organization that I worked for were touting it as one the greatest business books ever written. They were constantly talking about the ideas and principles that the book identified. I read the book – which I also testify to being one of the greatest business books ever read. Consequently, this book would be one of the catalysts for the beginning of the end for me in this particular organization.

The ideas and principles in Good to Great were illuminating and profound. They made absolute sense. Intuitively I knew them to be true; when I read them, they were obvious – there was no dispute. I was able to connect the dots between the problems within my own organization and could now clearly see the solutions. Even more encouraging was the fact that the senior leadership had latched on to this book and were proclaiming the principles. Wow – things would get better from here on – or so I thought.

Nothing changed. I later realized that only certain principles from those companies that went from good to great as outlined in the book were being declared while others were completely disregarded. Regrettably, even those ideas that were embraced turned out to be "flavors of the day". It doesn't really matter what you know if "how you are" can't deliver it. It was a problem of character in the leadership.

Nevertheless, I was ruined. I now had a much clearer picture of how organizations should work – what the inside of a great organization looks like. Ignorance was bliss, but I could no longer be satisfied with the status quo. I spent my remaining years with that organization doing everything I could to lead positive, effective leadership principles – both upwards and downwards. I was naïve: the challenge was impossible to overcome from someone that was not at the top of the organization.

The question still remains: Why can some easily grasp the concepts of effective leadership, while it is impossible for others? From the study of past leaders – both the good and the bad, I have concluded that it has nothing to do with education, IQ, skills, ability, strengths, charisma or looks. I believe that it comes down to one simple aspect. Humility. As I define in my book - Consequence of Leadership:

Humility is best defined as being without arrogance, showing modesty and not elevating ones self above anyone else in status. Humility is not depreciating or devaluing oneself in an attempt to bring others up. It is appreciating others as much as you appreciate yourself.

Leaders of the past that have accomplished great and positive achievements, valued others as much as they valued themselves, and their objective, vision or goal transcended their own personal ambition. They exhibited humility.

In order for leaders in the future to achieve great and positive visions and goals, they will have to do the same.

It doesn’t really matter what you know if “how you are” can’t deliver it

Enterprise system terrorism

I recently read an annual statement from company that had experienced monumental problems with the implementation of a new software program or "enterprise system" as they call it. Unless the organization exists to create software systems, i.e.: Microsoft, these programs are business tools designed to help businesses become more efficient with the purpose of providing better service to customers and ultimately produce increased profits. However, the company previously mentioned is certainly not in the business of creating computer programs and in this annual statement, the CEO used three paragraphs to discuss and reassure customers, investors and employees that the problems with this software program were coming to an end. He writes " … (computer program) has caused (company name) owners, customers, agents and employees a lot of frustration this year. … while we know there would there would be issues when we introduced (computer program), we were caught off guard by their scope. The number of complaints and severity of the problems are both in decline". This business tool has cost this corporation business.

A friend of mine works for a company that has experienced similar problems. The organization that he works for, absolutely consumed by the implementation of a business tool – a software program – allowed their focus to be moved away from their customers resulting in the loss of significant business and some major accounts.

I personally worked for an organization that implemented a software system designed to enhance customer order fulfillment. It was a disaster costing the organization over 10 million (more than 20% of this segment's total volume) in sales in the first year and destroyed all trust that the customer had in this segment of the organization. This computer program was solely responsible for destroying a major growth initiative of this company.

Is it just me or is there something seriously wrong here? Why do organizations continue to allow back of the house business aids to aggravate their customers and employees, eroding trust, sales and profit? With increasing frequency, businesses have become victims to these bits and bytes and minuscule transistors. CEO's, Presidents and business leaders are frustrated and embarrassed by these substantial interruptions in business resulting out of initiatives to improve their bottom line. Some have been removed from their post as a direct result of these disruptions.

One would think that the developers of these software systems would carry more responsibility for the destruction left in their wake. The benefits of their systems are aggressively promoted, and I am not suggesting that these systems are not beneficial – once they are working properly. Perhaps these enterprise system developers should also be on the hook for any business loss resulting out of the implementation of their system.

Enterprise system terrorism

Imagine business operating like a sports team

I am watching the NHL playoffs this year with interest, not because I am a fan of either team, but rather in an attempt to understand why sports teams operate so differently than many business teams. Regardless of the sport, there are some undeniable facts about those teams that make it to the finals, and ultimately the championship. It is important to first understand what it is not.

Best People

Having the best players (performers) does not assure any team of a championship. It certainly helps, but we don't have to look very far to find examples of poor performing teams with some of the best players, or the performance records of top players extinguished when they move to a mediocre team.

So much attention is given to the great players in sports (and in business) that the tendency is to believe that they are the key to success. I believe that the following attributes, in combination with great talent, under the guidance of a great coach (leader), create a championship team:

• The team is intently focused on their goal
  
• Each player knows his role, and executes it with excellence
  
• Each team member puts forth an above average level of effort
  
• Team members feed off of the energy of each other, and do not compete with each other
  

Many, businesses do not operate like a sports team, and fortunately, no sports team operates like a business. Look at my comparison between the sports team and the "traditional" business or organization. By "traditional", I mean the average mediocre business of today – many that are failing and a description of those that have failed.

Sports	Business
Coach is not in the limelight – largely behind the scenes. During the game, coaches role has only little effect on the outcome	Leader is often larger than life – seemingly the life of the organization – almost as if the company could not survive without. Team is brought up to depend on the micromanaging direction of the leader at all times
Every member of the team understands that their contribution is integral to the overall success of the team	Apathy often exists among team members. The importance of their contribution is not apparent to them, the team, or the leader.
It is obvious that great players require the help of their team members to become and stay great players – they work together	Top performers seem to get there on their own, with no recognition of the help of the team – tendency is to compete against their own team
Team is focused only on those metrics that support the goal of winning	Team's focus is often scattered among numerous goals and fringe metrics
What it looks like to "win" is clear	What it looks like to "win" is not always clear

I am trying to figure out why sports teams consistently maintain their focus on the goal – on the win, while business organizations tend to lose their way. Imagine the coach of an NHL hockey team in the dressing room addressing his players before the game; "Now team, we have to work on bringing our fan attendance up – I want each of you to focus on the crowd between whistles – make eye contact, smile and even wink at some of the ladies. We need to connect more effectively with the crowd during the game". How successful would a NASCAR team be if the crew chief was more concerned about the paint scheme on the car than the mechanical details?

Yet, I worked for an organization where making a facility pretty to impress the boss and monitoring the "metrics dashboard" was infinitely more important than serving the customer and meeting their needs. The shift of focus to revenues from vehicle financing (GMAC) by GM to bolster the profit line vs. making automobiles that people want is only one of a number of pitfalls that this organization fell in to.

This problem of "wandering focus" is not an issue with sports teams. Why is it so prevalent in business and almost every other organization? The consequences are certainly the same for both; sports teams do not win resulting in an eroding fan base and reduction of revenue; businesses lose market share and experience an eroding customer base and revenue.

My conclusion

The coach of a sports team can't fool the team, the owners, or the fan (the customer) – it is impossible. The rules of the game are simple and with only small minor exceptions, never change – putting the puck in the net will always constitute a goal in hockey, running a football into the end zone will always be a touchdown in football.

Conversely, business leaders have managed to overcomplicate business so effectively, that it is hard to know if you are winning or loosing. Changes in accounting practices, acquisitions, and market shifts or trends are often used as illusions to hide poor performance in core businesses. "Wandering focus" or the chasing of every alluring opportunity regardless of an organization's purpose and "reason for being" seems to have been in vogue over the past 20 years. It was almost as if a CEO was not a real CEO if he/she was not acquiring or diversifying. We see today that this waywardness is catching up with organizations, and the consequences are devastating.

Business leaders have fooled the team and the owners. However, they cannot fool the fan (the customer), and it is the customer that will always decide the fate of any organization. We would be wise to never forget this fact.

Now imagine the business that operates exactly like a sports team. I submit that there is a direct correlation between the success of any organization and the degree that its' operation matches that of a sports team.

Imagine business operating like a sports team

Listen to those that are closest to your customer

Last week I was standing in line at a store behind another customer who was having the mystifying details of her bill clarified to her by the cashier. This customer had taken advantage of a number of promotions and sales that this store was featuring, but the manner in which the savings were outlined on her receipt was extremely confusing, resulting in the requirement of a long drawn out explanation by the cashier. The apparent frustration of the cashier made it clear that this "customer teaching moment" was a regular occurrence. This extra time required for explanation to each customer slowed the checkout process to a slow crawl.

When my turn came, I empathized with the cashier after she had to decipher the secret code on my receipt to assure me that I received the appropriate savings due to me. The cashier added the comment "They have made this so confusing and I have to spend so much of my time helping customers understand this". I recommended that she speak to those that made the system about the problems you are experiencing. Her reply; "That is the problem – they think they know best and are not listening to anyone else".

Why would any organization allow a problem that is so obvious to everyone – particularly the customer, allow it to remain?

Those that are face to face with the customer in your organization hold some of the most valuable information, yet far too often never get an opportunity to share it. The reason: The leadership thinks they know best and are not listening to anyone else.

It is only arrogance that keeps leaders from seeking the suggestions and input of those that are below them. Unfortunately, this problem is epidemic in organizations today, and is one of many reasons that businesses do not achieve real and sustained success.

Customers expect their experience with your business to be simple and enjoyable.

Employees want to find fulfillment in their work.

Organizations that find a way to satisfy both of these expectations – win.

Listening to those on the front lines is a great way to accomplish this. Don't forget to ask.

Listen to those that are closest to your customer