Top Leaders Must be Visionary

Some people are visionary and some are not. Each has their place regardless and is invaluable when positioned correctly. However, placing individuals incorrectly can be catastrophic.

Those that are visionary, see the future clearly in their minds eye. They can describe visually what their ideal future looks like. Their vision can seem completely unrealistic and impractical to many, but can galvanize large numbers of people. Everyone wants to be part of something great. Consider Kennedy's vision on May 25, 1961 to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. Not only was this achieved on July 20, 1969, this audacious goal was a catalyst for a renewed spirit of hope and technological pride that reset the course of the nation with benefits for years to come.

Those that are strategic are best able to plan the course to the leader's the vision. It is my observation that those that are visionary are not particularly strategic and vice versa. The humble leader recognizes their natural talents and relies on others to balance off in the areas where they are weak.

Visionary leaders take groups of people, even entire countries, to heights that most never dreamed possible.

Leaders at the top of any organization / government must be visionary. While this is not the only requirement necessary for success, I believe it [success] is impossible without. Just look into any current failing organization / country and you will find a leader that lacks vision.

How do you know if you are visionary? If you can describe, in clear pictures - as if you are already there - what your organization looks like in the future, right now without having to conceptualize – you are likely a visionary.

Top Leaders Must be Visionary

The Impotence caused by Political Correctness

Many Canadians watched the future generation do their best to destroy downtown Vancouver after game 7 of the Stanley cup finals. I expect that most, like me, wondered how this could happen. I am not referring to the reason it started, I get that – a bunch of immature adults that never received a good old-fashioned whipping while they were growing up (Uh-oh, that wasn't very politically correct). But, why were these boneheads allowed to continue to burn cars, break windows and loot businesses?

To be very clear, I am not suggesting that this is the fault of the police. Police are dammed if they do, dammed if they don't take action. No one has any right to criticise the police until they personally stand in a riot, dressed in riot gear, and endure the same verbal and physical abuse. Treating the authority of the law of the land with this kind contempt (seen in any riot) is a sign of the times to come. It is great to see the citizens of Vancouver showing their appreciation for their police department after this riot – even covering a police cruiser with thank you notes – vs. condemning them for the problem.

We have arrived at this era where we are seemingly powerless to act from the riots of days past in which any action on the part of the police has been heavily condemned in the name of the almighty Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To be forced to stand by and watch, while personal property is being destroyed and looted is about as stupid as it gets.

If we were not ruled by political correctness (liberalism) this is how we could solve this problem:

• Amend the charter; if you are involved in a riot – you no longer have any rights.
  
• If riot occurs, police assemble and communicate loudly, repeatedly and clearly; if you are not part of the riot leave immediately or you will be arrested.
  
• Provide reasonable amount of time for the spectators to leave, and then move in.
  
• Use water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets, and overwhelming force to shut down the riot completely and decisively.
  
• Arrest everyone and charge all with every crime that has been committed during the riot.
  
• Introduce corporal punishment as an option for sentencing i.e.: public caning (tie them to a post in the center of town and beat them with a stick).
  

Now that is not very politically correct, but does anyone think we would see what happened in Vancouver ever occur again?

Sure, this is rather extreme but I believe that the vast majority Canadians would agree with a very harsh response to the anarchy that is prevalent during a riot. However, most won't come out and say it because this is not politically correct. Some reading this have a poor opinion of me because I stated an opinion that did not mesh with their own. Some feel that I should not even be able to state my view. Hence my point.

It is this same fear of criticism that has paralyzed organizations because too few people are willing to face and speak out about the brutal facts. And many leaders create this atmosphere by condemning the messenger rather than hearing the message. This type of impotence can't be corrected with a little blue diamond shaped pill.

Great leaders actively encourage the communication of all opinions.

The Impotence caused by Political Correctness

Stop managing people

"Inventories can be managed but people must be led" - Ross Perot.

This is leadership 101 - "leadership for dummies." Fundamental? Obvious? Should be, but surprisingly not all that common.

While inventory is inanimate, people have their own self-will, hopes, dreams and ideas. They [people] come with unique personalities and talents or gifting. All of this is problematic for managers, but invigorating for leaders.

Consider these contrasts:

• Procurement of inventory at the cheapest price possible is desirable, but not a winning strategy with people.
  
• Holding the least amount of inventory possible in order to increase turnover is a wise yet the complete opposite of what you would do with people.
  
• All inventory decreases in value over time (exceptions: wine, cheese, collectable memorabilia); this is completely opposite with people.
  

The "people" of the business are considered a cost of the business, listed on any profit & loss statement after sales and margin just before operating costs.

In Jim Collins' best seller "Good to Great," he outlines how great companies consider first "who" then "what." Here is his summary of this concept:

The good-to-great leaders began the transformation by first getting the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it. The key point is that "who" questions come before "what" decisions – before the vision, before strategy, before organizational structure, before tactics.

This is going to drive the accountants batty; what if salaries (people) were listed at the beginning of the P&L, before sales and margin vs. a cost that must be reckoned with? What if business operated like a sports team, which decides the amount of payroll it is going to spend and acquires the team as the most important part of the enterprise?

I can't imagine that anyone would dispute the importance of people to any organization. Most would not deny the findings of Jim Collins in "Good to Great." There are endless stories of both managers that failed because they treated their people like machines, and leaders that succeeded through inspiring and positively influencing their people. With the overwhelming evidence in support of putting people first in the organization, why is it so uncommon?

Stop managing people

The cost of arrogance

If you live in Canada, you are aware that we just completed a federal election. Canadian politics in general including the election campaign provide vast amounts of leadership subject matter. The most illuminating is the reason for this election in the first place.

One man’s dream

The recent Canadian federal election was in reality, about one man’s dream. This man “an elegant and fine minded individual,” as described by a member of his party, believed that he was destined to be the leader of this great country. This election was about the perceived entitlement of Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the Liberal party of Canada who said "let us dare to dream but let us also dare to act," and history now shows us the he did both.

Perhaps it was his 34-year absence from this country, writing and teaching – indoctrinating – other fine young minds in prestigious colleges, which created this impression within that he should be our leader. Regardless of reason, the fact is that despite all evidence to the contrary, Ignatieff thought “he” could win and triggered an election. This decision caused decimation in the Liberal party popular vote and seat count in parliament, with numerous long term MPs losing their seats including Ignatieff himself.

Humility is foundational to effective leadership, and as perfectly demonstrated in Canadian politics, arrogance usually results in the incapability to face the brutal facts. We see the problem with the conceited, proud, egotistical leader far too often, and other than “don’t make them a leader,” I am not sure how to correct.

For the self-important, high and mighty individual – the cure, the fix - is failure. You only had to watch Michael Ignatieff walk up to the podium to announce his retirement from politics to return to teaching to realize that his pride level has experienced a major correction.

Final thought: While I am not happy with the $300 million Michael’s dream cost Canadian taxpayers – I am happy with the final outcome. This time it was worth the expense.

If you disagree with any of this – you might be a liberal.

The cost of arrogance

Poor execution is an excuse

I am weary of hearing the word execution. Not the killing kind, the "do what you are supposed to do" kind. Leaders who blame failure on the lack of execution are misguided and, to be frank, wrong!

Failure in execution is actually grounded in the roots of poor communication. If one understands with complete clarity what they are to execute, and it is entirely possible with the resources and time available, there is only one reason for failed execution; I will get to that [one reason] in a moment.

The following story overwhelmingly illustrates the need for clarity in communication:

In the world of retail, the term facing describes the process of bringing merchandise to the front of the shelf to present a neat and full look for the customer. The manager of a certain new employee asked him to go and face aisle #5. After a period of time this manager noticed the employee just standing in aisle #5 and discovered that the employee understood the instruction to mean that he was to stand with his face toward aisle #5.

This is a true story; despite being simple and silly, a lack of understanding by either party is the primary root of poor execution.

By either party? Good communication requires good listening. Some leaders bark out instructions without realizing certain roadblocks and hindrances that make it difficult and sometimes impossible for complete execution. Listening and understanding would allow for a collective approach to removing these barriers, but some leaders believe that they [problems] will somehow disappear if they ignore them. And while "nothing is impossible with God," Matthew 19:26, those who ignore real problems will have rely exclusively on his or her faith to have any success.

The reality is, that blaming the lack of execution for failure is only an attempt to hold others responsible for poor communication. With respect to capital punishment, imagine holding an inmate on death row responsible for a botched execution attempt. That would of course be ridiculous.

That one reason: if the plan is sound, doable and clearly understood, the only possible reason for failed execution is open defiance / insubordination. This is a much different problem and relatively easy to resolve.

Poor execution is an excuse

Focus Magnifies

Concentration of attention directed at any point will magnify that point. Other things become smaller in comparison. A personal crisis puts everything in life into a different perspective; everything else becomes trivial in comparison.

Magnification can be good when it is on the right things, or the right side of the issue. Continuously reminding any individual of their strengths will affect that person in a positive manner and allow them to intensify and utilize those natural talents to grow. Focus on a business problem will put other priorities down the list in terms of importance. That problem will likely get resolved.

However, focus on the negative will magnify the negative. The intensification of problems will not yield positive results. This is similar to planting weed seeds in a garden and then purposely watering them. The weeds will eventually choke out anything good.

You likely know at least someone that spends a great deal of time and energy on the negative. They can be pessimistic about almost anything. Perhaps you are like this. What can you (they) do about this? Unfortunately nothing. Outside of getting a lobotomy, this kind of person is doomed to a life of mediocrity, problems and diminishing returns – they will eventually get sick and die young.

I am kidding . . . sort of.

It is possible for the pessimistic to change but not easy. Using the earlier analogy, one must plant good seeds and water so that they will grow and choke out the weeds. Our thoughts become our words; to change our thoughts, we must change our words. If I speak constructive and positive – I plant good seeds. They [spoken words] may not be what I believe – at first, but by speaking them, I plant the seed in my mind. And, if I continue to speak what I want vs. what I have, they will eventually grow and become my thoughts.

Be careful of your thoughts, for your thoughts become your words.

Be careful of your words, for your words become your actions.

Be careful of your actions, for your actions become your habits.

Be careful of your habits, for your habits become your character.

Be careful of your character, for your character becomes your destiny.

Adapted from a quote by Mahatma Gandhi

Focus Magnifies

Leadership Deflation

Ever been publicly criticized; reprimanded; reproved?

Often goes something like this; "Great results from Colleague A & B – thanks A & B, but poor results from you – when are you going to get your act together and do as good as them?"

Think back to how that made you feel; where you inspired and motivated to rise up and embrace your mistake with a renewed devotion to do better? Probably not, unless you are a masochist.

This is a chicken way out of doing the right thing. It can be hard to reprimand or coach someone one on one and takes a great deal of energy and time. However, providing completely candid feedback in a private setting is the best method of solving any issue and will not only allow you to maintain the respect of your team, but will cause that level to grow – especially among those that you extended respect by coaching in private.

Only cowards publicly humiliate members of their team.

Leadership Deflation