Note From Rand

With three other recent University of Texas grads, my friend Roy Spence started GSD&M forty years ago. Owned today by Omnicom, it was once the largest independently operated and full service marketing and advertising agency west of the Mississippi. At one time or another, they have handled both Walmart and Southwest Airlines. Roy also coined the now famous tagline for his home state: “Don’t mess with Texas.”

A couple of years ago with his associate Haley Rushing, Roy authored the book It’s Not What You Sell, It’s What You Stand For. The book’s proposition is that extraordinary businesses are driven by “purpose.” Helping companies translate that assertion into practical marketing reality has become GSD&M’s raison d’etre during the last several years.

That’s the backstory. What follows is the reason for bringing Roy to your attention: In a recent interview, Roy discussed founding his business, and the relationship that he has enjoyed with his three partners during the past forty years. His admonition is great advice.

Roy said that the commitment he and his friends made together forty years ago was this: “If we’re going to start this thing together, we’re going to finish it together.” He went on to say that being a partner is easy; what’s hard is dealing with the “ship” (as in partnership). The same might be said of leadership and friendship. His point: The tough work of life is acting in accord with the things that we theoretically support. Partnership, friendship and leadership all require action!

As you begin 2012, I hope Roy’s words resonate for you, and that you’ll commit to supporting your words with your actions. Remember as you undertake this: Progress is more important than perfection!

My lead article this month emphasizes the need to develop your strengths as a high priority. I’ve also included a brief piece on the importance of understanding and acting in accord with your needs, wants, and values.

I’ll see you in February. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!

Develop Your Strengths and Starve Your Weaknesses

I once worked as a partner in an international consulting firm. As a part of that assignment, I helped executives learn to think strategically. Strategic thinking and strategic planning are distinct but equally important disciplines. While strategic plans are frequently and inappropriately linear extrapolations of the past, real strategic thinking requires vision and creativity – “what if” thinking.

In those days, I invariably took clients through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis. Executives detail their organization’s current strengths and weaknesses as well as current and prospective competitive, economic and regulatory opportunities and threats. The ultimate objective is to develop plans that will leverage strengths and improve weaknesses, while exploiting opportunities and alleviating threats.

During completion, executives initially focused on weaknesses, their thoughts being: “Why should we spend our time doing anything about our strengths? They’re already strengths!”

Here’s why!

Peter Drucker once said, “The primary job of a manager is to make strength productive.” Most executives spend too much time improving weaknesses and not enough time leveraging strengths. With the velocity of competitive change that exists today, by the time an organization builds a new core competence, it’ll likely be irrelevant. Leveraging existing strengths is also a less expensive proposition than building or buying new ones.

Today, I spend much of my time helping individual executives develop and implement actions that’ll propel their own performance. The challenge is similar. People almost always want to focus on improving their weaknesses. I constantly hear comments like the following: “My company’s CEO thinks I’m a really great creative thinker. She doesn’t believe that my “follow-through” is as good as it needs to be.”

This person’s usual approach would be to craft a development plan focusing on improving follow-through. Here’s the problem: Depending on how large the deficit, this person’s follow-through skills may only become marginally better, and then only with a lot of work. Both the organization and the individual might be better off figuring out ways to leverage his strengths.

I’m not advocating the neglect of skill deficiencies. What I am saying is that organizational leaders and their associates generally expend too much energy and money on deficiencies and attend insufficiently to augmenting or leveraging existing capabilities.

Next month, I’ll take this examination one step further. Even when people sufficiently acknowledge and exploit their strengths, they rarely integrate an equally important consideration: What are they really passionate about? Being skilled and being excited are equally important dimensions of personal effectiveness.

Additional Thoughts: Needs, Wants, Values and Priorities

I once worked with an executive who stated with certitude that his family was his number one priority. He also lamented the fact that he spent virtually no time with his wife and kids. I responded that priorities are defined by how and where we spend our time and that, by definition, his family was not his number one priority.

During the next month, develop a list of your needs, wants and values. “What’s the difference?” you ask. A need is something you must have in order to be your best, such as time, space, money, love, information, food, etc. A want is something that you relate to by trying to acquire or experience it, such as a car, a vacation, a house, a promotion, etc. A value is something that you naturally gravitate to or that is prompted from within and not by needs or wants. The same thing can be a need, want or value for different people or for the same person at different times. Here are some guidelines:

• If there is urgency, it’s probably a need.
• If there is a craving or desire, it’s probably a want.
• If there is a natural and uncomplicated pull, it’s probably a value.

Next, complete a “calendar audit.”

Look at your calendar for the last couple of months. Take every bit of time, personal as well as business, and compare your expenditure of time with your needs, wants and values.

Last, create objectives and action plans to better align your words and your actions.

Note From Rand

Welcome to winter. I hope your Thanksgiving was enjoyable, and that you spent it with the people you love. As Christmas approaches, so does the winter weather. With any luck, we’ll be spared any weather catastrophes this year.

Just a reminder: Back before the NFL season began, I picked Aaron Rodgers to be the league’s MVP this year. I’m feeling pretty good about that pick. I also chose the Packers to beat the Ravens in the Super Bowl. Ditto! Just who will beat the Packers?!

This month’s article, “Why Smart Executives Make Dumb Decisions,” covers many of the reasons that we all occasionally go astray in our decision-making. It’s an admonition that I think you’ll enjoy.

Happy holidays!

Why Smart Executives Make Dumb Decisions

When I help senior leaders with their strategy creation efforts, I’ll review past strategies and then the results, financial and otherwise, that those strategies produced. I’m frequently amazed when I see that smart, capable executives have developed and implemented strategies that should have been obvious losers from the get-go. Here’s an example: Company A, a financial services powerhouse, acquired a mutual fund company – a business that they had not been in previously. The deal team and CEO together believed that mutual funds would round-out their product portfolio, enabling them to cross-sell, improve customer retention and, as a result, increase revenue and drive down acquisition costs. While I’m grossly oversimplifying this example, on the surface, it made sense.

Here’s what didn’t make sense: Post-acquisition, the inquisition began. The acquiring company began summarily firing executives from the acquired company, believing that because they (the acquiring company) were bigger and more profitable, they could and would run the acquired company better than the executives they inherited were running it. Keep in mind that the acquiring company had no experience in the mutual fund business. A couple of years later, they folded their tent in the business because they ran the acquired business into the ground. How did this happen? How did really smart and capable people conclude that this course of action would work?

Read on!

The emerging fields of behavioral finance and economics help explain why smart people make dumb decisions. These two disciplines use social, cognitive and emotional factors to understand the economic decisions of individuals and institutions performing economic functions, including consumers, borrowers and investors, and their effects on market prices, returns, and resource allocation. They integrate the insights of psychology, economics and finance. In turn, these disciplines have spawned an even newer field – behavioral strategy – which helps decision-makers anticipate and either avoid or ameliorate the impact of their own inclinations or impulses when making strategic decisions. Traditional economists disdain and/or dismiss the emerging fields of Behavioral Economics and Finance because in their world, the economy operates without the messiness of human interaction.

In reality, we all make decisions based upon fancy as much as fact. Whether in business or government, leaders frequently succumb to the following:

• Hubris. We’re the best. We’re the smartest. We’re the Masters of the Universe, but, of course, we’re humble. For some reason, smart and capable executives often believe that they are infallible. The truth: We all achieve success because of our strengths and in spite of our weaknesses.

• Excessive optimism. I do believe that optimism is good. There is a difference between optimism and Pollyannaism, however. (I once had a CFO working for me that I called “Dr. No.” One time during a meeting break, No pulled me aside and asked, “You wanna know how I got so pessimistic … by financing optimists!”). I have sat through many meetings with executive teams that started with a rational debate of issues and concluded with “group think.” Somehow, legitimate challenges often get underestimated because executives want to take a specific action or complement of actions to achieve a pre-determined end.

• Confirmation bias. That’s the screening out of data that doesn’t support a predetermined conclusion. Recently, I observed an executive team meeting conducted to assess the wisdom of entering a new market. During the PowerPoint presentation by the Division President to the CEO, CFO and General Counsel, I noticed that several relevant and potentially game-changing points that should have been included were not. When I asked the Division President after the meeting why that was the case, he responded: “Our CEO really wants to do this. I didn’t want him to confuse my countervailing argument with resistance to the initiative.”

I see this kind of behavior frequently among executives and companies of every size in every industry.

• Availability of data. That’s a reliance on information that’s easily accessible to make a decision. The relentless pursuit of the truth frequently requires deep digging for data and thorough analysis. Hard, but necessary.

• Overconfidence. While “excessive optimism” may explain front-end blunders in decision-making, overconfidence explains why many executives assume that they can overcome negative circumstances by (pick one or more): Our people are great – they can do it; the current prevailing economic winds will not continue to blow and if they do, we can handle them; the aggressive, predatory competitive environment will certainly abate but if not, we’ve successfully dealt with it before, etc.

• Confusing intuition, beliefs, feelings and facts. 2 + 2 = 4; everything else is subjective. We all impose our perspectives, informed by our experiences, on any situation. The BEST executives are able and inclined to differentiate among facts, intuition, beliefs and feelings when making decisions. I’m not implying that only facts matter; I am implying that facts are facts and those other things are not facts.

• Faulty or short memories. The best among us learn from experience. It’s called wisdom. As I’ve said many times, while wisdom is developed from experience, it is not the automatic by-product of experience. Here’s the formula: Wisdom = experience x reflection x relentless honesty x accountability (accepting consequences with no blame, no finger-pointing, no excuses, no whining, no escape-hatch) x behavioral change. Each of these elements is necessary, but alone, each is insufficient; it takes them all.

• Deference to “experts.” A lot of executives who retain strategy consultants defer to the recommendations of said consultants without significant challenge. Many consultants play to the preconceptions of executives, intentionally or not. Frequently, the result is not pretty!

• Under-appreciation of the power of their voices. An executive’s voice carries heft. When a CEO asks a question and implies a right answer, he shouldn’t be surprised when he gets answers that comport with his own opinion. A “nudge” from a CEO during a meeting often results in a lack of challenge, an absence of debate, and a preponderance of “group think” that mirrors the CEO’s own thinking.

When executives review this list of decision flaws, most recognize each as an affliction that affects other people, but certainly not them. Maybe the biggest decision-making flaw plaguing executives is this one: The failure to acknowledge their own decision-making fallibility and making sure that they create cultures of aggressive inquiry. “Smart” does not mean “insightful.” “Smart” does not automatically imply the inclination to confront and challenge. “Smart” may be necessary, but it’s insufficient.

Note From Rand

As I’m writing this, the Northeast is being pelted by an early snowstorm. Early? It’s October 29th! Climate change proponents will now use this as an example of the absolute, incontrovertible evidence of climate change; others will dismiss this storm as an anomaly. I suspect that the right answer is somewhere in the massive gray area in between. I do know this: I don’t remember an October snowstorm this early in the season.

You’ll enjoy this month’s articles. The first is an admonition to get your priorities in order. The second is particularly appropriate if you lead people. Its message: Treating people fairly does not imply that you should treat them all the same.

As you won’t be hearing from me again until December, have a Happy Thanksgiving and remember, as always: Get real, get tough and get going!

What Good is a Mercedes-Benz if You’re Jabba the Hut?

I recently read a staggering statistic. More than 40% of college graduates never read another book after they graduate – EVER – FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES!

If you are not among that 40%, congratulations; you are among the living. If you are among that 40%, how are you growing? How are you developing new perspectives? How are you challenging your preconceptions? Who are you becoming?

Personal development philosopher Jim Rohn said, “success is not something you search for and find; it is something you attract by the person you become.” If you aren’t reading, you are becoming more of the person you already are.

Wow!

Only 3% of the public in the United States have library cards. Double wow! 3%. All of my previous comments apply to the 97% missing the boat.

About 20 years ago, I was the number 2 guy at a medium-sized company. On one particularly spectacular spring afternoon, I was driving to a sales meeting we were conducting. The lady accompanying me was complaining that I wouldn’t let her smoke in my new car, which I was driving at about 70 mph down the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

After about 15 minutes of her cigarette tirade, she admonished me to slow down, not because of my unsafe speed, but rather because she said that new car engines should be broken in slowly. I knew that she was right, but my reaction was, “it’s a car!”

This person was really on top of the requirements for car maintenance, but she was ruining her health with a two pack-a-day habit. What is wrong with that picture?!

As a nation, we have become obsessed with “stuff.” There is nothing inherently wrong with “stuff,” mind you. What is confounding is that many of us value our stuff more than we value ourselves. We validate ourselves with other people’s opinions of our stuff. We eat fake food designed to addict us. We live on debt. We devour reality TV.

If Simon Cowell’s face is more recognizable to you than that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, what does that imply about who you are and what you value?

It can be different; you can be different. Do these things beginning tomorrow:

• Limit your TV watching to five hours per week.

• Read one book a month – at least.

• Purchase nothing in the supermarket from the inside aisles. That’s where all of the synthetic food is located. Buy food from the outside aisles only.

• Walk vigorously for two hours per week.

These are “bare minimum” recommendations. If your reaction is, “I don’t have the time,” please consider your priorities and their implications very carefully. Don’t take too long, however. Your psyche and your body are wilting while you wait.

Repeat After Me: I Will Covet My Game Changers

Danielle was an account executive with Forman and Company, a professional services firm that conducted high-end research, primarily for Fortune 500 companies. During her career, she had sold products and services ranging from time-shares to computer software and consulting – all with outstanding results. At some point in her career, she migrated from “rainmaker” to “game changer” status.

As contrasted from rainmakers – the name given to top salespeople – game changers redefine success. If a firm’s rainmakers typically bring in $1,500,000 of new business in a given year, a game changer might bring in $2 million or more, a significant disparity. This is the kind of person who makes a CEO sit up, take notice and inquire, “What is this person doing that none of our other successful sales people are doing?” This was precisely the case with Danielle. The senior leaders at Forman sought her advice on cultivating client relationships. In executive level sales, she had no peer.

Several years ago, Danielle became ill and missed six months of work. Because she was not productive during this time, Forman terminated her. Their rationale: She was not being productive nor could she guarantee, because of the nature of her illness, when she would (or could) return to work.

During her short time at Forman, Danielle booked over $3 million in new business IN ABOUT NINE MONTHS. My questions: As she was their leading sales person (out of about 250) during her first full year, what would her results have been during the next ten years? What did Forman lose in new business over that extended period because of their short sightedness? What statement did they make about what, and who, they valued? In their effort to appease marginal performers or make some ridiculous statement, did they arbitrarily cut off their collective nose to spite their face?

Too many companies and leaders go down this road. They are willing to appease the masses, while not recognizing and cultivating game changers. If you want to be successful, heed this lesson: You must covet your game changers.

Note From Rand

I hope that October finds you healthy, wealthy and wise, or that you’re well on your way. My two articles this month may help.

Many people fall into fixed habits and routines by adulthood and their clock stops. If you want to evolve, you shouldn’t let that happen; if you want to be really successful, you cannot let it happen! The first article suggests some strategies to get out of your comfort zone and keep growing.

In the second article, I admonish you to go “all in” in your life. If fully committing to dramatic action is difficult for you, my eight questions may shake you up enough to begin.

If you want to see a guy who is committed to excellence in his life – a guy who is “all in” – click here to view a compendium of interview highlights with actor Will Smith. After getting a perfect score on his SATs (1600 at the time), he was accepted to MIT. He convinced his parents to let him try the “show business thing” for a year. The rest, as they say…

I’ll see you in November. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!

Seven Tips to Keep You Growing

According to the late John Gardner, by midlife many of us are “accomplished fugitives from ourselves.” I agree! Someone else once said, “Anyone who has the same beliefs and attitudes at 50 years old that they did at 30 years old has wasted twenty years.” I believe that by the age of 40, many people (actually, maybe MOST people) have developed such fixed attitudes and routines that they could be described as having “psychic sclerosis” (hardening of the attitudes).

Dramatic personal change is difficult! My friend David Neagle describes the process as “going into the abyss.” The abyss is the lonely space that one must occupy between giving up something in the past and fully realizing the benefits of future opportunities. When most of us step into the abyss, the emotional pull of “what was” is so much stronger than the appeal of “what will be,” that our natural inclination is to return to the comfort of past, embedded routines. When we’re in the abyss, we have a strong tendency to pay much more attention to the gravitational pull of yesterday than to the appeal of a dramatically different tomorrow. Further, every time we allow the fear of that tomorrow to become overwhelmed by the security of yesterday, our resistance to future change and growth opportunities congeals. Pretty soon, we’re stuck … forever!

How can you build mechanisms in your life to become more comfortable with personal change and its attendant growth than the average person? Some tips:

• Read a lot, especially books that repudiate your preconceptions. Most people only read material that validates who they already are, and what they already believe. I am especially proud of the fact that if you were to go through my personal library of about 500 non-fiction books, you would have no clue as to my beliefs. Challenge everything, every day!

• Travel a lot, especially to countries with cultures dramatically different than ours. Most Americans speak one language and only travel to countries whose alphabets have 26 letters. Visiting Canada or western Europe does not count! If you want to get a taste of the world, visit an orphanage in Kenya or go trekking through the base of the Himalayas. Do it OFTEN!

• Stop making excuses for your habits and/or blaming your parents for who or how you are. Many people live on automatic pilot and invoke the following when what they’re doing isn’t working: “It’s just how I am; I’ve always been that way,” or “Blame my parents; they raised me this way. I’m just like my father.”

At some point, we have to give up the excuses. At some point, living successfully means not allowing what we’ve done in the past to control today’s choices. Successful people are truth-seekers who aspire to achieve wisdom.

I believe strongly in self-management and course correction. Wisdom is NOT an automatic by-product of experience. Here’s the formula: Wisdom = experience x reflection x relentless honesty x accountability (accepting consequences with no blame, no finger-pointing, no excuses, no whining, no escape-hatch) x behavioral change. Each of these elements is necessary, but alone, each is insufficient; it takes them all.

• Accept nothing at face value. Accept nothing as absolute truth without scrutiny, investigation and inquiry. Too many people will (for example) read newspapers and ascribe absolute, objective truth to what they read. My metaphor: 2 + 2 = 4; everything else is subjective.

• Distinguish between “acceptance” and “resignation.” Then, live accordingly. I believe in “acceptance” (giving in to reality). I DO NOT believe in “resignation” (giving up on possibility). I used to have a problem with the entire concept of acceptance because I perceived that it meant “giving up.” Clarifying the concepts of acceptance and resignation created a useful distinction for me.

• Accept accountability for outcomes but relinquish control of outcomes. I am a firm believer that I am responsible for my actions and accountable for the results of those actions – the good and the bad. At some point in my life, however, I learned to let go of the outcomes and not be controlled or defined by them.

• Let life touch you without letting it destroy you. This is one of the many practical admonitions from the great Jim Rohn. He meant that we should not fear experiencing all of the joy and pain of life. Many people avoid deep connections with others and emotionally disruptive experiences because they don’t want to experience pain or disappointment. No pain/no gain has application far beyond physical exercise.

When it Comes to Owning Your Life, Are You “All In?”

In poker, the term “all in” is used to describe the act of pushing all of your chips to the center of the table – letting it ride; going for broke. When it comes to living our lives, how many of us live so timidly that we will not go “all in?”

Do you linger forever on your successes, or do you celebrate and then set higher, tougher goals?

Do you consistently show up late, or are you rigorously punctual?

When you say you’re going to do something, do you actually do it – every time?

Do you under-commit and over-deliver, or the other way around?

Are you a “no excuses” person, or do you consistently and constantly rationalize, justify and blame others for your failures or shortcomings?

I’m an advocate of “burning the boats.” When you set a new goal, leave no room to return to the past and have no “plan B.” It’s the equivalent of sailing to an island and burning the boats. When YOU set a course, do you burn the boats or always give yourself an “out?”

Are you insatiable or do you “settle?” Do you strive for greatness, or is good enough, enough?

Likewise – are you satisfied being “just OK” with your life, or do you aspire to being “wildly happy?”

Note From Rand

As I write this, we in the mid-Atlantic are emerging from one of the most bizarre weeks I can remember. We started with an earthquake and ended with a hurricane. This week, I’m preparing for famine and locusts!

The football season is upon us. Last year I picked the Packers to win the Super Bowl, and Aaron Rodgers to be the league MVP. Let’s see … how’d I do? As I recall, the Packers did, in fact, win the game, and although Tom Brady was the league MVP for the season (deservedly so), Rodgers was the MVP of the Super Bowl. I know that you’re interested (?) to read my picks for 2011. Here goes:

NFC East – Philadelphia Eagles
NFC South – New Orleans Saints
NFC North – Green Bay Packers
NFC West – St. Louis Rams

AFC East – New York Jets
AFC South – Houston Texans
AFC North – Baltimore Ravens
AFC West – Kansas City Chiefs

NFC Champion – Green Bay Packers
AFC Champion – Baltimore Ravens

Super Bowl Winner – Green Bay repeats

My pick for league MVP again is Aaron Rodgers.

Bet your net worth on my picks. I may not be Jimmy the Greek, but I am Rand the German!

My one article this month concerns my political evolution, but it’s really about the priority of having a cohesive philosophy of life, and then manifesting that in your choices and actions. I’m a Libertarian, but that has little to do with the point, which is this: Consistency among philosophy, actions, and choices in your life will make you a happier and more effective person. Lastly, the tenth anniversary of 9/11 is approaching. Use part of that day to remember!

Until October, get real, get tough and get going!

Do You Have a Consistent Philosophy and Belief System?

Most people assume I’m a Republican. I’m a former CEO, former CMO, and now a business coach and consultant – you get the idea! The fact is, I have NEVER been a Republican. I was once a Democrat. Then I became an Independent, and for the last several years I’ve been a registered Libertarian. When I tell my friends that, especially those who I haven’t seen in several years, their eyes roll back. The assumptions that they and many people have about Libertarians is that we’re either selfish “me first” people, right-wing reactionaries, or stay-at-home vegetative types who just want to be left alone! I’m actually none of those things, but I do contain small pieces of EACH of those things.

The diversity of our ranks and beliefs, however, speaks volumes about us. We agree on a few key things and disagree about plenty. Most of us believe strongly in individual freedom, a small, Constitutionally-based Federal Government, individual responsibility and accountability, and low taxes. Most of us also migrated to libertarianism after some reflection and self-examination. That’s what incited and then propelled my journey. When I began comparing my personal beliefs and philosophies with my voting history, it created dissonance.

Here’s my story:

When I began voting in the 1970s, I was a staunch Democrat. My view of life was idealistic rather than tragic (“tragic” as in the context of Greek tragedies), and my belief was that government could be a force for good. Over time, as I assessed the results of government actions, such as various permutations of “wars on drugs,” interference in the operation of the free marketplace, efforts to mitigate poverty, etc., I became convinced that legislative solutions, more often than not, were “throw money at it and hope for the best,” and that the follow-through by agencies charged with execution was generally ineffective. (It’s important to remember here that I speak MY truth, not THE truth. I’m not writing to challenge your perspective – only to challenge you to HAVE one!)

In 1980, after what I considered to be the disastrous Presidency of Jimmy Carter, I took my first leap into non-traditional voting waters by casting my ballot for John Anderson, the Independent candidate for President. His views seemed less governed by any party dogma than by his own conscience, and I liked that. From 1984 through 2008, my Presidential voting record would have given a few clues as to my overall philosophy, which was beginning to congeal (more about that later) – Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Bush, nobody.

About 15 years ago, I began to develop my own philosophy; not a political philosophy, but rather how I aspired to live my life, and what I believed ABOUT life. Some of its current elements follow:

• I own my life. I am responsible for my actions and accountable for my results. PERIOD!

• I believe in “acceptance” (giving in to reality). I DO NOT believe in “resignation” (giving up on possibility).

• I believe that personal growth is our primary, life-long mission.

• I believe in self-management and course correction. Wisdom is not an automatic by-product of experience. Here’s the formula: Wisdom = experience x reflection x relentless honesty x accountability (accepting consequences with no blame, no finger-pointing, no excuses, no whining, no justifications or rationalizations) x behavioral change.

• Our natural tendency – one that we must reject – is to surround ourselves with people who affirm who we already are, rather than those who inspire us to reach higher and do better. In order to grow, we must surround ourselves with the kind of people that we want to be, not those who mirror our own character defects.

• Real friends put truth telling above peacekeeping. They place the welfare of their friends above the survival of comfortable friendships.

• I believe that without discipline, aspiration is hallucination.

• The formula that most people employ to rationalize (to themselves) their own dysfunctional behavior is this: Doing the wrong thing and a good excuse = doing the right thing. I believe that when we suffer discomfort from dissonance, we must use it to instigate action and growth rather than inertia or excuses. Personal responsibility must always trump convenience.

There are more but you get the idea. My objective is to have a belief system and then to conduct regular “self-audits” to ask myself: “How am I doing?”

I have failed that test many times. Instead of making excuses, I ask, “What have I learned?” and “Can I commit do DOING better and to BEING better?” I’ve also learned, from the teachings and examples of others, that I can still be kind to myself and accept my flaws without letting myself “off the hook,” and being resigned to their permanence.

Concurrent with this journey, I refined my view of the role I believed government should play in my life. That view was based on my assumptions about our government. Some of THOSE follow:

• Government will naturally grow in a metastatic way.

• Federal, state and local legislatures and government agencies often address the same issues in an overlapping, expensive and bureaucratic way (Somebody explain to me why we need departments of education at every level!!).

• Local answers to issues and problems are almost always more effective than nation-wide answers. (I feel the same way about the solutions to issues and problems in corporations).

• Competition among states is a good thing.

• In order to accomplish SOMETHING when they cannot accomplish RELEVANT things, legislatures (at every level) will often pass legislation whose costs far outweigh their benefits.

• Cause and effect are never linear, time-bound, and absolute. As a result, solutions to problems often create other problems. Even when solutions are effective, they rarely comport with election cycles. So the election (and more importantly, re-election) of government officials can almost never be tied to their results, except over a very long period of time.

• Most government agencies reward their employees for “inputs” (“tenure” being a notable example) rather than “outputs” (results). The natural consequence of that is an inward focus. That is not a good thing.

Again in this case, there’s a lot more!

When I lined up my personal beliefs, how I want to live, and my views about government against my views and voting record a decade ago, I reached the conclusion that I was a hypocrite. I always voted for one of the two political party candidates and almost always opted for the person who I felt would do the least harm. No more!

My admonition to you: Develop your own philosophy. Live your life, to the degree possible, consistent with that philosophy. When you feel dissonance, undertake self-examination and make changes to your actions rather than invoking excuses, rationalizations or justifications. Own your life.

When it comes to your political persuasion, don’t react to what’s out there and available. Be true to yourself, your beliefs and your values. Assess your affiliations and candidates based on actions, not on speeches.

Note From Rand

I am ecstatic that the NFL labor dispute has been resolved. Football is really the only team sport that I still enjoy watching. As my Redskins enter their second season under Mike Shanahan, I’m optimistic. In their Division and with their ownership, anything but last place is a reason for celebration. I think that’s doable.

Last year, I picked the Packers to win the Super Bowl by beating the Ravens. I selected Aaron Rodgers as my MVP. I’m repeating those exact picks for 2011. I’ll reveal the remainder of my omniscient selections in September.

This month’s article is a rant on our Federal debt and deficit. It’s really the first of a two-part article.

I realized after talking to a lot of smart people, that the whole issue is harder to comprehend than I thought. With that in mind, I’ll provide a very elementary tutorial on the subject. Indulge me please. I am really upset at this whole mess and its outcome. Many of our country’s leading newspapers have called the result an “historic debt deal.” Here’s the real deal on the debt deal: dissemble, delay, defer.

In September, I’ll detail my migration to the Libertarian Party. Hopefully, I’ll provoke you to undertake some personal examination of your own beliefs. There’s no right answer or template for what to believe or how to live your life, but as someone once said, “Anyone who believes at 50 years old everything they believed at 20 years old has wasted 30 years.”

Next month, I’ll also include my brief review of a new book by (playwright) David Mamet, entitled The Secret Knowledge – On the Dismantling of American Culture. I am reading it right now, and it’s a great book about one man’s evolution.

Enjoy and as always, get real, get tough and get going!

Do You Understand Our Financial Malaise?

My interest here is to provide a very basic explanation of our country’s financial condition and not an analysis of “who shot John,” or a prescription for our salvation. With that in mind, I’ll keep my personal politics, philosophy and beliefs out of my argument.

During the last several months, I’ve engaged a lot of very smart people in discussions about the USA’s deficit/debt problem. I’ve learned the following things:

• Many people … maybe even MOST people … don’t know the difference between our national debt and the deficit.
 
• Many people actually believe that we still operate on the gold standard (we don’t and haven’t since 1971).
 
• Lots of folks (including, apparently, our Congress people) think that if our government needs more money, it can just print it with no detrimental side effects.
 
• Apparently people think that it’s OK to be virtually owned by China.

The following dialogue, which is to serve as a tool, is typical of discussions I’ve had on the subject of late:

Them: “So Rand … I don’t get this whole deficit/debt thing. What’s the difference, and what’s the big deal?”

Me: “Let’s start here: The deficit is the annual difference between what the federal government spends and what it takes in, in taxes. Currently, the government is spending about 40% more than it takes in. Here’s an analogy to make my point clearer and more personal. Let’s say that you make $200,000 a year. If you were operating with the same deficit as the government, you’d be spending $280,000 a year. I also didn’t include your personal income tax implications in my example.”

Them: “What? I couldn’t do that!”

Me: “Of course you could. You’d go to the bank and borrow $80,000 so you could pay the difference between your living expenses and your income.”

Them: “Yes, but then I’d be in debt to the bank, and if you include interest and depending on the length of the loan, that $80,000 could end up costing me $250,000 or more.”

Me: “Exactly. Now, what if you had to do that every year?”

Them: “You mean borrow $80,000 every year?”

Me: “Yep.”

Them: “If I did that for four years in a row, I could be in debt around $1,000,000.”

Me: “So let’s review where we are so far. You make $200,000 a year, and you spend $280,000; that’s 40% more than you take in, just like the federal government. After four years, you are $1,000,000 in debt. You have to pay your debt and cover your expenses, so you have to continue borrowing more and more money. At some point, banks will then only loan you money at ever increasing interest rates because you are a bad bet for them. Those increased interest rates result in your debt multiplying multifold. Eventually, you can’t get out from under.”

Them: “So how does the government make up the difference?”

Me: “Here’s what the government does: It sells bonds. When you buy government savings bonds, what you’re doing is loaning money to the federal government.”

Them: “What? That’s not true!”

Me: “What do you think bonds are?”

Them: “They’re bonds, not loans.”

Me: “Bonds ARE loans. When you buy corporate bonds, you’re loaning the company money. When you buy government bonds, you’re loaning the government money.”

Them: “I didn’t know that! So that’s how the government borrows money?!”

Me: “It’s a gross oversimplification, but yes. There’s more: What if you went to a bank to borrow one of the many times you had to do that and you said this: “I promise to get my financial house in order if you loan me more money. Next year and for the next ten years, instead of spending $80,000 more than I make, I’ll only spend $40,000 more than I make. Isn’t that great?”

Them: “I’m still increasing my overall debt but reducing the amount of my annual deficit! You’re not telling me that’s what our government is doing, are you?”

Me: “That’s exactly what I’m telling you. Our President and both parties in Congress are arguing over how much to reduce the deficit. No one is talking about the fact … AND IT IS A FACT … that out debt will continue to grow exponentially because we cannot service our debt, PERIOD, under any of the scenarios.”

“The Country is broke, and we have a bunch of political hacks debating whose irresponsible approach is the best and patting themselves on their backs for their respective solutions.”

“Unless things change fairly quickly (and they WON’T), we are in very deep yogurt for a very long time. So, by the way, are your children.”

My realization that our political system and its players are either disinclined or unable to deal with problems of this magnitude informed my migration to the Libertarian Party several years ago. I’ll write more about that and my other epiphanies that compelled it in next month’s issue.

Note From Rand

Tomorrow, the movie Horrible Bosses opens in most major cities. I’ve only seen the previews and I’m no Roger Ebert, but it looks like a scream!

My article this month, Help! My Boss Is A Jerk, exploits that theme. Every person, at one time or another, believes her boss is a jerk and wants him to be different. My take: Too many people let that perspective undermine their success.

That issue segues to a bigger one – one that has become a theme in my work and in my own life: If you want success, you have to “own your life.” Read on to find out how to do that.

Have a great July. As always, get real, get tough and get going.

Help! My Boss is a Jerk

I work with managers from every level – high-potential middle managers to CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. At some point, many of them (including CEOs referring to Board members) complain that life would be so much better if their bosses weren’t such jerks.

Their complaints about boss “jerkdom” take many forms. “My boss is such a micro-manager; I have no decision-making space of my own” is a common theme. “My boss doesn’t understand how hard my team and I are working. I never get a thank you” is another. I also hear some variation of this one a lot: “Mr. X makes a lot of thinly veiled threats. He’ll make some comment about our needing to pare expenses. Then in the next breath, he’ll mention some aspect of my performance that he believes is sub-par. When I “connect the dots,” I’m scared to death I’m going to lose my job.”

Recently, during a very early-stage discussion, a new client said the following: “My boss is a jerk. I hate him. I cannot be effective working for this guy!” I reacted with the following question: “So why am I here?”

He looked stunned and then said, “You’re here to help me to be effective and successful in this role.”

I returned with this: “But you said that you cannot BE effective working for the guy you report to. If we assume that he isn’t going to be hit by a truck or get moved any time soon, you’re going to be reporting to him for the foreseeable future. If you cannot be effective as long as you report to him, then you’re paying me a lot of money for nothing. Don’t get me wrong; I like being paid. I just don’t like being paid if we’re both operating under the delusion that you can be successful if that’s not the case!”

He was stunned! “Look,” I continued, “it is OK to want your boss to be different than he is. At some point, we all want our bosses to behave differently than they do. I am self-employed. I know my boss can be a jerk! The point … and it’s one that applies to all aspects of your life, not just your boss … is that it is OK to want things to be different than they are. It is not OK to require things to be different than they are!”

A light bulb went off! It changed both the tone and substance of our discussion and anchored our business relationship for the next year. The implications for you: We all go though life creating rationalizations, justifications and excuses for “the way things are” in our lives. We blame our bosses, our spouses, the weather, competition, regulation, recessions, expansions, sinus headaches and male-pattern baldness for our failures, yet we accept praise for our successes as if we achieve them alone, in isolation. “I did it alone because I am the causer of all successful action, the grand poobah of magnificence, the great and powerful Oz,” our thinking goes.

If you aspire to be a successful, well-adjusted, high-performing, purposeful, productive and happy person, there is one absolute, irrevocable rule: You must OWN YOUR LIFE – ALL OF IT! Owning your life embodies two basic elements: The first is accepting responsibility for creating your results; the second is accepting accountability for your results – the bad as well as the good. A brief explanation:

I’ve heard personal development gurus say that the word responsibility can be broken down into respond and ability. They say you can think of responsibility as the ability to respond. I don’t believe that assertion implies the appropriate level of action.

For me, owning my life implies the need to respond. If I’m going to really own my life, I have to take action. Life does not reward ability; it rewards the use of ability! I know a lot of capable people who choose not to act. Many of them have become psychologically immobilized by their past experiences. How that happened or whether they were complicit isn’t as relevant as this absolute truth: If you don’t take the reins, the reins will take you!

If you want success, you have to take the reins.

The notion of accountability is tough for most people. Without accepting consequences, there is no accountability. Accepting consequences is difficult in a society in which we’ve been conditioned to believe that success is a right rather than a privilege that must be earned, and if we’re not successful, it’s because of somebody or something else. To wit:

• If the IRS is closing in on you, it must be the big, bad IRS. It can’t be because you evaded your obligations or cheated.

• If your house is being foreclosed, it can’t be because you’re over-leveraged. It must be the “fine print” in your mortgage contract.

• If you got drunk and wiped out a school bus, it must be because the bar served you ten drinks and not because you are an irresponsible slob.

• If you can’t pay your credit card debt, it’s the fault of the credit card companies and not your belief that you have a right to own lots of stuff, whether or not you can afford to buy it.

We’re all occasionally victimized. The prior examples, however, illustrate how many people invoke blame, excuses, rationalizations and justifications for their plight. If you want success, you can’t be one of them. Own your actions and your outcomes, and you own your life.

Note From Rand

The pre-orders for my book, Consensus is not Kumbaya, are going great guns on Amazon. As a matter of fact, I’m told their original stock is out, and they’re waiting for a shipment from my publisher.

Remember, you can purchase the book directly from me through my web site (www.randgolletz.com) and either receive a discount or get a copy of my last book, Stepping Stones to Success, which also features Jack Canfield, Deepak Chopra, Denis Waitley and others, FOR FREE. Click on one of the cover displays below, and it’ll direct you to an online form to complete your order. For those of you who have read Consensus, I’d appreciate your writing a review on Amazon.

Two pieces this month. The first, “The Power of ‘No’,” makes a powerful point about the priority of giving customers specific answers to their questions. As usual, it comes from my own experience. The second, “Interview for Personal Qualities,” emphasizes the need to hire for character, which is something most companies don’t think enough about!

I’ll see you in July. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!

The Power of “No”

I arrived to check in at my hotel in the middle of long business trip. I approached the counter and was greeted by a pleasant young woman with her name emblazoned on a badge affixed to her shirt. It said “Melanie.” Underneath her name was printed one additional word, the dreaded “Trainee.”

I’m very careful to treat novices with the appropriate kid gloves. I have no expectation that a person with limited experience will have the authority or expertise to solve major problems. In this case, I didn’t expect to present any major issues to Melanie; I expected an uneventful check-in.

She greeted me cheerfully by name and took an imprint of my credit card. As she was about to reach for my key, I made the mistake of asking the following question: “Melanie, as I’m a super-duper member of your frequent guest program, do you think I could have an upgrade to the concierge level?”

She stared at me in terror. There was no one else around to ask. I expected Melanie to break out into a flop sweat like Albert Brooks in the movie Broadcast News. After about 30 very quiet seconds, she said, “Well, Mr. Golletz, I don’t know!”

I calibrated my response and tone to suit her inexperience. I didn’t want her to get turned off to a career in customer service, but I did want to teach Melanie a valuable lesson. I proceeded, “Well, who would know, and when will they know?”

I wasn’t improving Melanie’s self-confidence; she stared at me without a sound. I continued.

“Melanie, I can’t do anything with your response. Your ‘I don’t know’ assumes one of the following: that I’ll forget about it and just go to the room you had intended me to get, or that I’ll wait here for someone who can give me a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on my request.

“I could decide the latter, but I’m tired and I’m sure you’re tired of me, so I’ll go to my room. I want you to remember a couple of things, however. ‘Yes’ is a good answer. ‘No’ is also a good answer. Both allow me to do something; they’re complete. ‘Maybe’ is not a good answer because it leaves me hanging. In this case, you could have said, “Mr. Golletz, I’m a trainee, and I don’t have the authority to make that decision. I apologize.” I would’ve been OK with that too.”

I hope Melanie learned something, and that she is in a position to teach others valuable lessons about service.

When dealing with customers or clients, specific requests require specific answers.

Interview for Personal Qualities

Most executives’ hiring skills are sorely lacking. A couple of years ago, I consulted with a medium-sized company’s Board of Directors to sharpen their ability to recruit and select senior executives from the outside after a couple of bad hiring decisions had nearly buried the company. As a first step, I completed a post-mortem of a couple of catastrophic hiring decisions with the chairman and executive committee. Both revealing and disturbing, these experiences can also be instructive for you.

First, in neither case did they develop a list of the specific strategic hurdles facing the company, and the special challenges they posed for executive hires. This point is critical: “Generic” management or leadership challenges do not exist. Nor do generic leaders. Organizations, like products, have life-cycles. A company facing a growth challenge in a hyper-competitive market has leadership priorities and, by extension, recruiting challenges that are different than those facing a company, department or division confronting bloated expenses.

Second, when looking for executives, this Board of Directors never searched for the attributes of personality and character that would comport with the company’s unique challenges and profile. A candidate is more than the linear progression of job experiences detailed on her résumé. She is also more than a bundle of knowledge, capabilities and skills. Two questions you need to answer when hiring senior executives:

* To what degree are courage, focus, discipline, resourcefulness, resilience, perseverence, persistence, endurance, physical fitness, self-knowledge and self-regulation important?
* How do you uncover the presence or absence of those attributes in the recruiting and selection process?

If you haven’t answered these questions, you need to.

Third, this Board of Directors was ill-equipped to conduct senior executive interviews. Each interview was an awkward dance resulting in only the following two outcomes:

* They knew if they liked each candidate, at least superficially, and
* They got clarity on the elements detailed on each candidate’s résumé.

Behavioral interviewing is now the accepted gold standard in interviewing. Here’s how to do it: Start every probe with the following phrase: “Tell me about a time that you…”

I tell my clients that the best place to start, after getting through the niceties, small talk and courtesies, is with the following request: “Tell me about a time that you failed.” You will learn more about an executive from her response to that request and the follow-ups that ensue than any other question you ask; I guarantee it.

Executive selection is too important to consider it a “nice-to-do” process. By dedicating the resources necessary to do a great job, you’ll avoid pain and additional cost down the road.

Note From Rand

June will be a big deal for me (yes … I know it’s May). My book, Consensus Is Not Kumbaya – Lessons In Tough-Minded Leadership, will be published on June 14th. Forgive me, but I’m officially smitten with myself!

While the book outlets (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.) won’t have it available until June, you can purchase advance copies (or copy, although I can’t imagine why you’d want only one) through my web site now for $13.95 (including shipping). That’s $5 off the retail price.

Here’s my super-duper special: From now until May 15th, for the full retail price of $18.95 (again, including shipping), you’ll receive my book PLUS a copy of Stepping Stones To Success, which I co-authored last year with Jack Canfield, Deepak Chopra, and others. Again, click this link for the special offer.

I’d appreciate your comments about my book once you’ve read it. Also, share your reviews on Amazon, B&N, etc. I’ll be in your debt.

My article this month is “Where’s Your “Dude-Line,” Dude?” It’s about the deterioration in comportment and dress I’ve seen in organizations during the last several years. Although “tongue-in-cheek” and amusing, there’s a serious point about the appropriate and inappropriate limits to familiarity and informality. Enjoy it!

I’ll see you in June. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!

Where’s Your “Dude-Line,” Dude?

I was sitting in a meeting to watch one of my clients deliver a presentation to a group of twenty senior leaders, including the CEO, of a Fortune 200 company. About five minutes into his “pitch,” an attendee raised his hand, was recognized by my client, and then asked a well-articulated, pointed question. My client’s response: “Dude … what are you talking about?!” Actually, it sounded more like this: “Duuuuuuuuuuuuude … what are you talking about?”

The questioner then re-asked his question, and my client answered it. No harm/no foul, right? Hardly! After the meeting, I saw two separate, small groups of attendees congregated outside, in the hallway, laughing and commenting about the “dude” comment and my client.

Have we reached a level of dismissive informality in organizational life that this kind of comment should be acceptable? If the “dude” remark is OK in a room of senior executives, where is it NOT acceptable? Just where is the line – the “dude line” – that is unacceptable to cross?

Another example: Wastin’ away again in Margueritaville

I was on an elevator in the corporate office of one of my large clients riding from the top floor to the ground level. On the way down, we stopped on the ninth floor to pick up another passenger. The elevator door opened and there he was – a guy dressed like he was on his way to play beach volleyball – but I knew better. It wasn’t casual Friday; it was summertime, which meant casual everyday.

He was dressed in flip-flops, a T-shirt adorned with a picture of a surfboard, baggy shorts and wrap-around shades. He was lookin’ cool – for a picnic or a trip to the beach. I turned to him with a straight face and asked, “So, where’s your parrot?” He smirked, mumbled something, got off part of the way down and headed for the Starbucks located in the building, obviously to meet other cool lookin’ dudes for caramel macchiatos and to share tales of life in Margueritaville.

Ten years from now, that guy is going to be wondering why his career never took off. If I run into him then, my response will be the same as now: “Hello, it’s an OFFICE!”

Shortly after this encounter, I mentioned it in passing to a senior leader at the company, who said, “I know. It’s really gotten out-of-control. We need to tighten the standards in our dress code.” My response was, “No you don’t. You don’t want to punish the many to control the few. You just need to enforce the code you have.”

A while later, I was meeting with a prospective client, a middle manager and aspiring executive at a Fortune 500. He came to our initial “meet and greet” dressed in blue jeans (not fairly new blue jeans but rather “just having mowed the lawn” blue jeans), running shoes and a $10 collarless T-shirt. When I introduced myself, I shook his hand firmly. His grip was uncertain and droopy. During our discussion, his eyes never once met mine.

At the conclusion of our discussion, he inquired, “So Rand, based on initial impressions, can you recommend anything I might be able to do right now?” I said: “Yes, as a matter of fact, I can. Allow me to demonstrate my respect for your time and intelligence by being blunt. First, no more blue jeans. Dress like where you’re going, not like where you’ve been. Second, when you’re talking to someone, make consistent eye contact and third, your handshake grip ought to give the other party the impression that you’re happy to see him, not that you’re worried about catching his cold.”

We seem to have lost, or misplaced, the concept of appropriate business dress, acceptable cleanliness and etiquette in many of our organizations. If you are a leader, you have the obligation to set an example for those who are less well-groomed and whose behavior is better suited to Carlos and Charlie’s Cantina than a business office. You also have the right to expect those who report to you to get their sartorial and behavioral acts together.

Note From Rand

I’m writing this as I’m preparing to watch the NCAA Final Four on Saturday, April 2nd. By the time you receive this, you’ll know who won the whole enchilada. When I wrote it, however, I had no idea. I hope your team won, if you care.

My article this month, “Business Lessons From the Final Four,” cites lessons for your business from the involved teams and coaches. I think you’ll enjoy it.

I must say something about the incipient major league baseball season: I’m an Orioles fan. I’m not a fan of the Orioles ownership, but I like the team and its tradition. Once again this year, I’m hoping for improvement. For the first time in over a decade, I’m optimistic that my hope will be rewarded because of manager Buck Showalter’s leadership. Every place he’s been, his discipline and focus have resulted in dramatic improvement. The Torre years in New York were built on the foundation poured by Showalter. The Diamondbacks’ World Series win was accomplished after a dramatic, three-year overhaul by Buck. He is a tough-minded, no BS guy, and I hope he’s given the time to accomplish what I know he can. Go Orioles!!!!!!

As for you, until next month, get real, get tough and get going!

Business Lessons From the Final Four

I frequently draw from the military and sports worlds for leadership lessons. Wooden and Lombardi gave us examples as relevant and compelling as Winston Churchill from politics or GE’s Jack Welch from business.

The teams that have made the NCAA’s Final Four provide lessons that are easily exportable to business. A few of those follow:

• Sometimes the “bad guys” win. Kentucky’s head coach John Calipari has run what journalists call “renegade programs” since he was the head basketball coach at the University of Massachusetts a couple of decades ago. Investigations seem to follow him around from one college program to another. Even when he appears to be operating within the letter of the law, he rarely seems to operate within its spirit. His players rarely graduate. His recruiting methods are routinely questioned, and yet he is always employed and always wins.

In business, it’s easy to find low-life executives who provide negative examples from which we can derive rationalizations, justifications and excuses for unethical or “borderline” behavior. I’ve personally known some executives who operate “on the fringe.” Some of those bad actors, however, achieve great wealth for themselves and their companies.

You always have a choice; you can follow the dysfunctional, unethical example of others, or you can be the example – the role model – for others. You can be a “what I’m doing isn’t that bad” person, or one who believes that character is truly revealed when no one is looking, and the odds are slim that transgressions will be publicly revealed.

More in the next bulleted point:

• Wisdom and character most often trump talent. Every year, a few Universities and Colleges get their “pick of the litter” when it comes to basketball talent. For some schools, a kid’s potential to graduate is a lot less of a factor in his admission than his ability to “stick the three.” At many of these institutions, coaches and administrators create scenarios to explain to themselves how a “borderline” kid might graduate, given the appropriate mentorship and tutoring, while either their intention to provide those things or the kid’s intention to accept them are in serious doubt.

Some other coaches and administrators, however, have an unflinching dedication to “doing the right thing,” as opposed to “doing the expedient thing.” For them, integrity is a ground-rule rather than just one among many considerations that inform how they run their programs.

In your business and life, is integrity a ground-rule, or just another consideration among many as you make decisions and take action?

• Age is not a prerequisite for wisdom and character. Two of the Final Four coaches are really young guys. Virginia Commonwealth coach Shaka Smart is 33. Butler coach Brad Stevens is 34. When I listen to interviews with these two guys, the phrase that comes to mind is “old souls.” While one seems more reserved, calculating, deliberate and methodical (Stevens), and the other more effervescent, emotional and enthusiastic (Smart), they both strike me as guys who have learned and then employed life’s lessons.

I wrote the following in my soon-to-be released book, Consensus is not Kumbaya – Lessons in Tough-Minded Leadership: “Wisdom is imparted by experience, but not always. A huge difference lies between having ten years of experience and one year of experience ten times. For experience to result in wisdom, reflection, judgment and behavioral adjustments have to ensue.”

Each of these guys seems to have taken the experience that he’s acquired in his young life and extrapolated that into something bigger, better, and wiser. Each would be as successful as a business leader as he is as a basketball coach.

In your life, is “the whole” of your lessons greater than the sum of the parts?

• Smaller, less significant competitors often become big Kahunas. College basketball experts and talking heads refer to VCU and Butler as “mid-majors.” While no one seems to have a great definition of that term, I think what it means is “schools that do not have long, countrywide reputations as basketball powerhouses, who have not historically made it very far in the NCAA tournament, who play in smallish facilities, who do not enjoy having massive recruiting and scholarship budgets, and who compete in conferences with schools that have similar limitations.”

After making the NCAA tournament several times in recent years and the Final Four this year and last year, Butler is moving out of mid-major status. VCU is still firmly entrenched there.

As I recall, UCONN was classified as a mid-major until 20 years ago when Jim Calhoun took the reins of their program. Who would call UCONN a mid-major today?

In business, wasn’t Southwest Airlines a mid-major until fifteen to twenty years ago? When I flew into Baltimore Washington International Airport in the early 90s, USAirways (then USAir) dominated. Southwest has effectively driven them out coupled with USAir’s own incompetence. Who heard of Capital One Financial in 1995? The first time I heard “What’s in your wallet?” I didn’t get it. Today, their brand is as recognizable as McDonald’s or Coke. Howard Schultz not only built a company and a brand, he also created a category. In 1990, coffee was still a breakfast beverage; now, it’s a lifestyle drink. My point is big companies were once small; powerhouse brands were not always so; potent competitors were once struggling start-ups.

The lesson for you: Never, ever create excuses for tough competition or tough times. I hear it all the time. Executives and business owners blame regulation, competition, Bangalore, third-world slave shops, recessions, expansions, sinus headaches, male pattern baldness or the full moon for their companies’ lousy performance when the right answer is always in the mirror! Don’t be one of those. When times are tough, double-down. If your company is small, invest in growth. Own your results; own your life!!