Refreshing Honesty

I have been watching the X Factor series on TV (similar idea to the American Idol) with Simon Cowell as one of the judges. Simon Cowell is well known for his blunt and controversial criticisms – he says it the way he sees it and based on his comments I can't image that he holds anything back.

It's actually quite refreshing; someone who is completely honest and says what he means and means what he says. There is no political correctness in this guy whatsoever. Everyone knows where they stand with him.

He is generally not even nice about it, no sugar coating. I imagine most people think he is harsh, mean, and perhaps rude.

Question: What is worse?

Lying and deceiving someone by telling them what they want to hear rather than what you really think?

Or,

Being completely honest and saying what you really think in an effort to help?

There are four judges on this television show, but it is clear that Simon Cowell is the most respected. We especially wait to hear his opinion above the other three, regardless of how harsh it may come across, because we know that it will be an honest opinion. Society is craving honesty in communication.

The first step to encouraging honesty is to accept and understand one simple fact: Having hurt feelings is a choice.

Refreshing Honesty

Blame – A Destructive Force

Blaming everything and everyone else is a reality that is literally destroying societies.

• Failing to pass a test is the fault of the test, the teacher or the school.
  
• A speeding ticket is somehow the fault of either the police or the limit sign not placed in a convenient enough location to see in the short spurts of time the driver is looking up between text messages.
  
• "Occupiers" have camped out in cities all over North America blaming the rich for all the problems in the world.
  
• People are offended because someone said something that "offended" them.
  
• Poor business results are due to the recession, the system, competition or the government.
  
• The criminal commits crimes because of their upbringing, race, colour or perceived disadvantages they have had in life.
  

When we levy blame (accountability) against someone else, it tends to abdicate all responsibility for doing anything to solve the issue. This renders people powerless – it creates victims, which shuts down ingenuity, suppresses creativity and smothers progress.

When my kids were very young I was not concerned when they would blame their sister or their toy for being upset, because I knew they would grow out of it. But really, what do you say to a person that is vibrating with contempt for the police because they were introduced to the effects of pepper spray after hurling rocks, bottles and Molotov cocktails at them? How do you respond to a businessperson that blames all of their problems on everything and everyone else?

The right response / approach / attitude is to consider what my part is in this situation. Instead of blaming someone else for my problems, what if I ask myself what I may have done / currently doing / not doing to cause this problem and what or how can I take action to resolve it. If I accept responsibility for my own problems, not only will I avoid repeating, I am most likely to take productive action to change them. (Notice the emphasis on first person in the preceding two sentences).

Whining is not taking action. Forcing others to solve your problems is not taking action. Positive leadership takes action that is constructive – never destructive.

Blaming others is a waste of energy and creates powerless victims. Looking in the mirror for accountability and action will cause you to enjoy great success.

Now, if you feel contempt for me because of the feeling of guilt you have after reading this . . . you might have a blame problem.

Blame – A Destructive Force

Larger than life

Jack Layton's (leader of the Canadian New Democrat Party), recent passing – a victim of cancer – was a shock to many Canadians. Regardless of your opinion of Jack's politics / methods, it is difficult to argue with the fact that he was effective. Jack was extremely focused, energetic and charismatic and his leadership in the most recent federal election won his party their highest number of seats on record.

However, in retrospect, the vast majority of votes were for Jack Layton and not necessarily for the NDP party or their platform. In certain ridings, individuals were elected that were unknown to voters and completely absent during the campaign. This voting "fever" was termed "orange crush," because orange is the party's official colour. In the riding that I live – a majority conservative riding – I noticed an extremely large sign on a resident's lawn for Jack Layton. The irony is that in Canada, we don't vote for the leader, we vote for the specific MP (member of Parliament) and the party that wins the most seats forms government. In essence, NDP voters put all their hope on one man – Jack Layton.

The problem with this is that Jack Layton was the NDP party / the NDP party was Jack Layton. His passing leaves a gigantic vacuum. Jack was larger than life and there is no one that can fill the void left by his passing.

If the leader is "it," the one with the all ideas, all the energy, all the solutions and fails to mentor others to become like them and eventually be them; the reign of their organization is finite.

Leaders must work to become irrelevant.

Larger than life

Should others follow your lead?

Should others follow you? Is your leadership worth following? If the world acted and did as you do, would the world be a better place?

Consider the example you set for your family, particularly your kids. Would you be proud if they acted the same as you?

Reflect on your driving habits; do they exemplify what you would like to see in other drivers?

The greatest leaders are not those that are the loudest, who stand out among the crowd with grandiose personalities, but rather the meek, mild and most considerate. They are not pushovers, but instead stay on course and seem to do the right thing without inflicting causalities along the way. They treat others as they themselves would like to be treated.

I believe that the greatest leaders this world has and will see are those that we don't name or write books about. They remain behind the scene, out of the limelight and set the example for all to follow. They seem to follow this principle:

Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Romans 12:16-18

Our actions speak louder than our words.

Should others follow your lead?

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