Note From Rand

Well, the football season is approaching its mid-point, and my Washington Redskins are a mess. That team is a testimonial to the impact of poor leadership. A friend of mine once told me “a fish rots from the head.” Amen!

Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rogers was just selected as “Offensive Player of the Month” in the NFL. On my Facebook page, I projected him as the league’s 2009 Offensive MVP. At this point, I like Drew Brees for that award — 20/20 hindsight. I also picked the Packers and the Ravens to go to the Super Bowl. The Packers won’t make it; the Ravens might.

My first article this month re-emphasizes the importance of a leader understanding the power of his voice. I cite an example from my own experience to make my point. The second one deals with voice mail, its misuse and poor use.

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

Know the Power of Your Own Voice

The new CEO of an unprofitable telecom, Frank hired me to help him create a corporate culture that was less “fraternal,” and more results-driven than it had been in the past. Until a few years earlier, the company had been a “quasi-government” entity, employing relatives and friends of cabinet secretaries, former cabinet secretaries, deceased oil barons, Saudi sheiks and various and sundry other hangers-on who were delighted to collect a paycheck, but not similarly enthused about hard work or value creation. The company was a great place to hang out with one’s buddies from just after breakfast until just before the cocktail hour.

They had recently been acquired by a private equity firm serious about making money and with a reputation for constantly prodding the leaders of companies it owned to achieve challenging financial commitments. Frank was equally serious. A 50% improvement in EBITDA coupled with 25% top-line growth would result in about $70 million in his pocket if the owner sold the company as planned, two years out.

Serious dough, n’est pas?!

Frank took his first six months to assess the state of the organization and craft his plan for improvement. He then assembled an “all-hands” meeting to announce his plans and to entertain questions. I was excited to watch his “pitch.” He was a brilliant presenter with a corresponding command of detail that onlookers often described as “breathtaking.”

The first 30 minutes or so of his presentation was awe-inspiring. Frank wove a tale that honored the past but, at the same time, outlined challenges that would overtake the company if things didn’t change. People were riveted. He prowled the stage like a cat. He deftly balanced his emotions — enthusiasm, joviality, concern. It was brilliant.

Then the bottom fell out.

As he described the culture he envisioned for the company – one that should be “merit” rather than “politically driven” – he said the following: “We’re not here to make friends!”

Yikes!

The mood in the room changed instantly: from eager anticipation to quiet concern and then to cynicism and anger. It was obvious, but Frank didn’t see it. He was wrapped up telling his story and painting his picture of a future that would be brighter if everyone focused on value creation. No one heard any of that; they were fixated on, “We’re not here to make friends.”

Frank concluded his presentation and received mild applause. Without that one comment, it would have been a wildly enthusiastic standing ovation. What a shame.

Afterwards, he asked me how I thought things went. I’m sure he believed that my reaction would be a back slapping, “Frank, you da man!” Instead, I said, “Houston, we have a problem.” When he asked why, I explained that the look that overtook attendees’ faces when he made his “friends” remark polluted their collective perception of his entire presentation.

He couldn’t believe it. Incensed, he asked me to informally survey a small number of key staffers. Their input confirmed my suspicion.

I’ll cut to the chase: Frank spent the next two years repairing the damage from that one comment. He apologized in the company newspaper and in videoconferences. He used part of virtually every interaction to provide context for his comment. While most people said that they understood, my sense was that his explanations were the equivalent of a page 10 retraction of a page 1 story.

Here’s the implication for you: What you say may not be what people hear. If you lead people (or, really, even if you don’t), you have to understand people’s context. Every human being brings unique “baggage” to every interaction. If your success depends on people understanding your intentions, you have to be absolutely precise with your words and clear about their context.

Successful Voice Mail Protocol

Try this: Randomly call 10 business associates and listen to their voice mail greetings. “What if they answer their phones,” you ask? Don’t worry; they probably won’t. Most people don’t actually answer their phones any more (more about that shortly). Unless you are completely desensitized, you’ll be amazed at the (poor) quality of their greetings. Following are a few examples and my suggestions for improvement:

• The executive that has his assistant leave his/her voice on the message rather than his own.

That greeting implies this: “Your call isn’t important enough for me to even leave my own recorded voice for you, you inconsequential twerp!”

The solution is obvious: Leave your own voice, not a surrogate’s.

• The voice mail greeting that says this: “I’ll return your call at my earliest convenience.”

This is NOT an appropriate response to a call. When I hear this, my reaction is: “What if it isn’t convenient until next month, you bone head? What if I’m a customer wanting to do business with you?”

The solution: Say this: “I’ll return your call shortly.” Then, do it!

• The greeting that sounds like the greeter is in pain or blasé about life in general.

The solution: Get a clue! People do not want to do business with someone who sounds like he needs an adrenalin injection. Pep it up! Sound like you mean it!

• The greeting that says: “We’re closed for Thanksgiving. We’ll be open again on Monday.”

The problem with this greeting is that it isn’t appropriate in August!

The solution: It’s OK to leave a “one size fits all” voice mail greeting. When you choose to change it up a bit, however, and leave one that is day/date specific, make sure you change it when it’s no longer appropriate.

• The greeter who never answers his phone, but uses voice mail to screen calls. This person then decides whether to return specific calls at all…EVER!

The solution: Anyone who employs voice mail for this reason should pack his bags, lock his office, quit his job and go home. He lacks the manners and judgment to be successful.

If you want to hear a great voice mail greeting, call and listen to mine (301) 482-2598. Don’t leave a message, however, because I don’t want to talk to you — only kidding!

Note From Rand

Somehow, somewhere, someone developed the following perspective that permeated and finally pervaded business: With enough work, a person can change anything about himself. That assertion is simply untrue. My first article cites one example: character. I believe you’ll like it; I know you’ll find it illuminating.

My second article this month examines the importance of questions. I believe that most people, including business leaders, could benefit from asking themselves better questions about their milieu. I contend that if you want really great answers — answers that provoke, answers that incite, answers that instigate and irritate — you have to ask really great questions.

I’ll see you in November. In the meantime, you can always catch me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/rand.golletz. Until then, get real, get tough and get going.

When is a “Fixer-Upper” Really a “Tear-Down”?

You’ve seen the real estate ad. It goes something like this: “50 year-old home. Needs the tender, loving care of an owner with patience, talent and time.” My translation: “It’s a money pit. You’ll spend years trying to get it where you want it. You might succeed; you might fail. In either event, an adequate payback for your time, talent and money is highly unlikely.”

Real estate professionals call this kind of house a “fixer-upper.” I call it a “tear-down.”

Occasionally — actually, more often than I’d like — I get called by nervous CEOs or their HR heads to work with executives who are “tear-downs” masquerading as “fixer-uppers.”

What is an executive “tear-down”?

I once got a call from the CFO of a Fortune 500 company requesting that I contract to work with his controller. The CFO said that the controller would benefit greatly from working with an executive coach, and he had heard that I had a high level of success working with “tough guys” (his actual description). I laughed to myself because, while I actually had a record of success working with “harder-edged” executives, his description conjured up an image of DeNiro in Goodfellas.

I agreed to meet with the CFO to discuss the matter further. Here’s my (abbreviated) recollection of our conversation:

Him (forlorn): “Well Rand, it’s like this: Frank [not his real name] has a bit of a problem controlling his temper. A couple of weeks ago during one of his staff meetings, he yanked his phone out and threw it through the wall.”

Me (astonished but composed): “Is there more?”

Him (nervous and fidgety): “Well, yes, actually. During a discussion a couple of weeks before that, he took off his right shoe and smashed his heel through his computer screen.”

He went on to describe behavior that alternated between violent and destructive to property and verbally abusive to people, and it was escalating.

Me (increasingly wary and incredulous): “What’s the reason that you called me?”

Him (pleading but hopeful): “I’m hoping that you’ll work with this guy and fix him.”

Me: “I don’t fix people, but I’ll give you my quick take and a couple of insufficiently grounded recommendations. None of this will require you to pay me a penny. This guy appears to have a severe anger problem, an impulse control problem or both. [I know that by now you're marveling at my insight.] My guess is that before you realize any benefits from his getting help, he’s going to do some REAL damage. Here’s what I would do if I were you: I’d either fire him, require him to get psychiatric help (as a condition of ongoing employment), fire him as well as pay for his psychiatric help or give him a leave of absence — paid or otherwise — in order to get psychiatric help.

You are on the hook for this guy’s behavior. This is not an executive coaching challenge, although I’m sure that you’d be able to find a coach to tackle this, especially at the fee level you mentioned on the phone. I am not your guy, however.”

Why is this not a coaching challenge?

I won’t bore you with the rest of this story. Here are my key points:

Executive coaches can be really effective at identifying and dealing with many professional (and some personal) development challenges, including:

Knowledge and skill development

Creating and supporting the execution of specific, quantifiable development plans and

Procuring and providing feedback on executives’ actions.

Executive coaches should never be hired to work on significant “character issues” with people. You must go to great lengths to be sure that you are not engaged in folly, i.e., misdiagnosing a character flaw as a performance or development issue in order to delegate it (or abdicate) to an outside expert.

What is “character?”

I recently read the following definition of character: “The aggregate of personal attributes that enable a person to resist temptation and ethical compromise.”

That’ll do.

Here are some of those personal attributes:

Courage. Overcoming crippling fear (not the absence of fear).

Discipline. Doing what needs to be done, the way it needs to be done, when it needs to be done, EVERY TIME.

Persistence, resilience, perseverance and endurance. In total: Not quitting, being flexible, sticking to it and being tireless.

There are a lot more, but you get the idea. These attributes enable noble performance. They are cultivated by example, primarily early in life by caregivers, family and friends. They form the foundation on which knowledge and skills are built and without which knowledge and skills are useless.

The bottom line: Coaches cannot develop character. By the time someone becomes an executive, she either has it or she doesn’t.

If You Want Great Answers, Ask Great Questions

In my profession, I hear all kinds of excuses. Here’s one: “The economy is awful. How can our company possibly prosper during times like this?” And another: “We’re a small business. How can we compete against the big guys?”

You get the idea.

Some people, including executives, constantly make excuses in all arenas of their lives. A couple of years ago in this publication, I said the following: “It’s not your ‘stuff’ that determines your success. It’s what you do about your ‘stuff’ that determines your success. We all have ‘stuff.’ Victims (and excuse makers) are on a recruiting mission to geometrically increase the membership of their two clubs: The Loyal Order of Irritating, Recreational Whining Victims of America and its sister organization The Submissive, Indulgent Enablers of the Loyal Order of Irritating, Recreational Whiners of America. The former group retains the services of personal injury lawyers ready to extract large sums of money from those they believe are to blame for their malaise — everyone but them. Members of the latter group (the farm team for the first group) listen and bob their heads in agreement as those victims whine. Both clubs meet at water coolers and in the restrooms of leading organizations.”

Implicit in that comment is my assertion that if you want to create success, you have to own your life — PERIOD! Furthermore, success depends upon asking questions that will yield powerful answers. The question “Why is everyone in the world conspiring to ruin my life?” yields very different answers than “What must I do to attract people into my life who support my success and happiness?” The question “What niche is Starbucks not filling that we can fill?” yields more productive answers than “Starbucks is a behemoth. How can we be expected to compete against them?”

Several years ago, I was hired to help the CEO of a Fortune 500 company instill a “questioning culture” in his company. It was November, and the company was experiencing a disappointing year. He wanted to use their annual, worldwide management meeting to provoke a high level of introspection and critical honesty. We separated the 200 attendees into groups of 10 and asked them to answer the following questions:

How can you leverage the [company name] brand and value proposition in a more focused and disciplined way next year than ever in the past?

What obstacles stood in the way of doing so and achieving this year’s planned results? Did you adequately anticipate them?

As this year progressed, did you create any “excuses” (for yourself, to make you feel less culpable) for not achieving planned results? What were they?

Success often breeds hubris. Did past successes lead to any overconfidence this year? In what way(s)? What will change next year?

Looking at next year, what stands between you and the achievement of your planned results?

In what ways are you “smarter” now that’ll better enable you to achieve next year’s planned results?

Were your expectations realistic this year?

Did your plans adequately identify and deal with opportunities and threats?

Are your results scorecard and review processes sufficient to identify slippage? What systems and processes must change for you to deal with slippage more effectively?

Are your internal systems sufficient to respond quickly and adequately to adverse conditions?

How do you respond to midterm negative change and surprises? Is this adequate?

When negative results surprise you:
Are you solution-oriented or blame-oriented?
Do you hold your entire team accountable rather than one person or function?

What are the consequences for not participating fully with the team?

Their answers resulted in many new insights that instigated a review and fundamental change in the company’s planning, performance review, leadership development and control processes. Again, if you want compelling answers, you have to ask compelling questions.

Note From Rand

This month’s “Real Deal” is a bit of a departure. As I’ve previously mentioned (ad nauseam), I have two books coming out in the next several months. The second one, my solo effort tentatively titled Redefining Type A — I’ve learned that until the first copy is printed everything is tentative — will be out by the end of the first quarter of next year. Right now, my contract attorney, Henry Clarke, and I are reviewing the contract language, not a big deal but a long deal. Also, Robyn Spizman (with the publishing house) and I are debating alternative subtitles for the book. (Does anyone have any novocaine??) This is an important, if tedious, exercise. Robyn is simply the best in the business at book marketing, and I’ve learned just how critical title selection is. Go into an airport bookstore and see which business titles grab and shake you; you’ll see what I mean.

The first book, Stepping Stones to Success, will be published in a couple of months. An anthology, it’s comprised of chapters from a lot of well-known contributors. David Wright, the publisher, has given me permission to print one chapter in this newsletter.

Rather than including the entire piece herein, however, I’m making you do some work. I’ve included the book cover and the first few pages of a chapter entitled “The Journey from Hard-Headed to Tough-Minded Leadership.” It’s an interview with me by the publisher. With all due humility, you’ll like it.

Until next time, get real, get tough and get going! Go Redskins!!

The Journey From Hard-Headed to Tough-Minded Leadership

Following is an excerpt from an interview I did with David Wright, publisher of Insight Publishing. This is the second time David and I sat down for a discussion on my management and leadership philosophies.

David Wright (Wright)

Today we’re talking with Rand Golletz. As an executive coach, consultant, speaker, and author, Rand brings something unique to his profession. He’s been a CEO, the Chief Marketing and Sales Officer of a Fortune 100 company, and the practice leader of a worldwide consultancy. Rand’s value proposition can be summarized by saying, “He’s been there and done that.”

Rand works with corporate leaders and business owners to develop the characteristics of what he calls “tough-minded leadership.” This is his second collaboration for Insight Publishing. The last, Blueprint for Success, was published in 2008. His solo book effort, Redefining Type A, is currently being edited for publication in 2010.

Rand, welcome—or should I say “welcome back!”? How have you been, what have you been doing and, more specifically for our readers, what have you been thinking about?

Rand Golletz (Golletz)

Actually, one thing that’s been consuming me since we talked for the Blueprint book is helping organizations do a better job of leveraging their leadership strengths. That includes helping leaders identify and develop them into über strengths, accepting the notion that there’s no such thing as a perfectly well-rounded leader (that’s a difficult proposition, by the way). I’ve also been helping both companies and their leaders configure their strengths in ways that give them the best opportunity to win.

Wright

So, if I heard you correctly, Rand, including what you’re not saying, you think the traditional path to developing talent—identifying weaknesses and developing them into strengths—isn’t the way to go. True?

Golletz

Now that I’ve opened that can of worms, let’s deal with the worms. First, I have created “rules” (if you will) for developing leaders that serve as the entry point for my discussions with prospective clients—leaders in large organizations. The rules comprise my governing beliefs about leadership development. Here’s the first one:

You must accept that you are not equally and infinitely capable of all things.

Wright

Okay, let’s stop there, Rand. Are you saying that someone who is not a good people manager won’t become a good people leader?

Golletz

Not exactly. Here’s what I am saying. Someone who’s not a good people leader (and by the way, that category needs to be defined more precisely to have any hope of working with it) might become a better people leader than he or she is. But the likelihood of taking a guy like “Chainsaw” Al Dunlop—the CEO accused of driving Sunbeam into the ground—and turning him into Mother Teresa is slim. So I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to improve in areas of weakness, only that you will not get your best leverage there.

As a strategic matter, the quickest road to success is to apply one’s strengths to opportunities that present themselves. That occurs when leaders make decisions about where to focus their company’s resources—all of them, including time, talent, and money.

Leaders accepting that they’re not capable of all things begins with how parents raise their children. Parents often drill into their kids’ heads the notion that they can be anything they want to be. If they truly want their children to be the best they can be, that premise is simply untrue. At a fairly early age, kids telegraph what they’re good at and what they love doing—and they’re generally the same things, by the way. Unfortunately, parents and school systems do their best to turn kids with specialties into uninspired generalists. Here’s a fresh way to think about this: To be successful in business, you must at least have acceptable, baseline levels of capability in a variety of areas. You must know, however, where your strengths are. From there, you do your best to create opportunities to exploit your strengths while limiting the exposure of your weaknesses in critical situations. Therefore, my second “rule” is this:

You must understand your strengths and weaknesses in a precise and granular way. Knowing them starts with feedback.

Wright

I’ve heard you say before that “feedback is the breakfast of champions.” You’re not telling me now that feedback is useless, are you, Rand?

Golletz

No, I’m not, David. I want to convey that much of the feedback obtained in the interest of personal development today is a complete waste of time. Let me explain. Most of the companies I work with use a formal 360-degree feedback process with their executives. Some are “off-the-shelf” processes, some are custom-designed, and many combine the two. What’s the problem? Many of these processes ask well-meaning but generic questions. What’s the result? They generate well-meaning but generic answers.

Wright

Can you give our readers an example of these questions and answers?

Golltez

Sure. I recently worked with an executive who had been through a written 360-degree feedback process. In addition to having a “check-the-box” exercise for providing feedback, people also had ample opportunity to write in narrative insights. One of them wrote: “John (the leader) does not collaborate very well. Unless he learns this vital skill, I believe that his promotional opportunities will be very limited.”

Wright

I get the feeling you believe that the feedback wasn’t very useful.

Golletz

I’ll go you one step better, David. It was completely useless! Here’s why: It’s imprecise and unactionable. The word “collaborate” is too lofty and too generic a word. When I think of that word, more specific words come to mind that describe collaboration—like “negotiate,” “compromise,” “influence,” and twenty or thirty others. All are part of collaboration and would do a better job of describing the potential development opportunities for John than “collaborate.” Each of those words can then be broken down into even more precise and finite descriptions.

Note From Rand

Facebook. Wow – what a concept! If you are not at least beginning to get involved in electronic social networking, you’re missing the boat. If you are a business person and a LinkedIn devotee, I’m sorry to tell you this: LinkedIn is teetering on irrelevance. Too pallid, too passive, too, well, BORING. It doesn’t force you to actually DO anything.

A number of my friends say, “I use Facebook for personal stuff, and I use LinkedIn for business stuff.” When I ask them, “What business stuff?” they say “networking.”

Really?! You fill in your data, you “link in” with other people, and then what happens? NOTHING! It’s a repository. Conversely, I defy you to become a Facebook member and then leave it alone. You can use it for your personal stuff; you can use it for your business stuff. I PROMISE, however, you WILL use it!

If you look at my Facebook page, including my “info page,” you’ll notice that I have encapsulated everything from my favorite movies to my personal beliefs. If you read my Web site and my Facebook page(s), you’ll have a reasonable idea of who I am. If you scan my “friends” list, you’ll see people that, I guarantee you, you didn’t know that I know – unless you happen to be one of those people. Many of them are people with whom I share a deep, common interest in something. Others are current or former clients. Some are family. They paint a picture of me. You have to figure out what that means.

If you fear disclosure or transparency, stay away from Facebook. It’s no fun if it’s used superficially.

Two really good articles this month. The first deals with a rampant corporate affliction: terminal lateness. The second highlights one of my (and perhaps your) ongoing personal struggles, that of “acceptance.”

I’ll see you next month. Until then, get real, get tough and get going!!

Rand Golletz’s Profile | Create Your Badge

Are You Committed to Being Late?!

A couple of years ago, I wrote back-to-back articles on the subject of “commitment.” The thrust was this: When we say we’re going to do something, it’s imperative that we do it, even if the thing seems insignificant. A lot of people responded: “I ALWAYS keep my promises.”

Really?!

I went on to invoke some examples: The mom who promised she’d absolutely be at her daughter’s soccer games, when what she really meant was, if something at work didn’t interfere. The guy (in this case, the example I used was ME) who, in his voice-mail greeting, promised to return all calls within 24 hours and then didn’t. The sales woman who committed to achieve her planned results and then employed every excuse imaginable when she failed

We all blow it now and then. The problem is not that we ought to expect perfection (although we should STRIVE for it). The problem is that many of us have such low expectations of ourselves that breaking commitments either creates no dissonance, or it provokes the creation of feeble excuses. My favorite one: “I’m only human.” When I hear that one, my first thought is: “No, you’re not only human. Humans have free will, the capacity for discipline and the ability to control impulses.”

We take commitments lightly in our society. In a work setting, THE most egregious example of this is “tardiness.” Many executives — I won’t go so far as to say “most,” but it’s close — have no concept of the importance of being on time or the cost to themselves and others for being late. They show up late to appointments scheduled by others. They show up late for appointments or meetings that they schedule themselves. They plan back-to-back meetings, an hour apart, and then just move on to the next one when the current one is finished, expecting that attendees will excuse their behavior, because it’s just part of the way business is conducted today. After all, everyone is busy and everyone is overscheduled. Here are some problems caused by “terminal lateness” that you ought to care about:

• If you are an executive, you have to set an example for others and “lateness” demonstrates a lack of discipline (I define discipline as “doing what needs to be done, the way it needs to be done, when it needs to be done — EVERY TIME!). Remember, people follow examples, not orders.

• Being late demonstrates poor manners. It’s rude. It’s disrespectful of other people’s time.

• Lateness inflicts damage on overall organizational effectiveness and productivity. If everyone is late as a result of your being late, what’s the cost of the cascading consequences?

You might think that “I’m in charge; the big kahuna; the causer of all action and the decider of all decisions. It’s my right to make other people adjust to my schedule. I’m da man.” Remember this: There is no more morally indefensible reason for doing ANYTHING than “because you can.”

If you read this and think “this is all easy for you to say; I don’t really control my time,” you’re a victim. I write this newsletter exclusively for leaders who make a conscious choice not to be victims. These are people who believe in establishing their own rules of engagement; people who believe in self-governance; people who accept the notion that one of our priorities as leaders is to be the productive example for others, not to follow the dysfunctional example of others. Victimhood is diversionary and irresponsible.

One of my mentors, the great Dan Sullivan, crafted what he called his “four rules of referability for entrepreneurs.” Those are:

• Say “please” and “thank you.”

• Do what you say you’re going to do.

• Finish what you start, and

• Show up on time.

How many people do you know that adhere to these admonitions? How about you?

“Acceptance” Has Always Been the Bain of my Existence

There is no formula for success … except perhaps an unconditional acceptance
of life, and what it brings. - Arthur Rubenstein

Per Wikipedia, “acceptance usually refers to cases where a person experiences a situation or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it, protest, or exit. The term is used in spirituality, in Eastern religious concepts such as Buddhist mindfulness, and in human psychology. Religions and psychological treatments often suggest the path of acceptance when a situation is both disliked and unchangeable, or when change may be possible only at great cost or risk. Acceptance may imply only a lack of outward, behavioral attempts at possible change, but the word is also used more specifically for a felt or hypothesized cognitive or emotional state. Acceptance is a key for all family members, because it lets one feel accepted, thus someone may decide to take no action against a situation and yet be said to have not accepted it.”

Yeah, whatever!!!

The truth is, “acceptance” has always been difficult for me. If I accept things/conditions/situations as they are, doesn’t that mean that I’m “throwing in the towel”? I know that it’s emotionally and spiritually unhealthy to obsess over situations – to fixate on how messed up they are. Still, how can anyone say that, in a world with starvation and AIDS and constant war, we should be “accepting”?

In a business context, I was raised to believe that “you plan your work and you work your plan.” How does that notion comport with the concept of acceptance? If you’re off track, aren’t you supposed to do more, work harder and find another way to achieve the results for which you planned? Isn’t acceptance the wuss’s way out?

No, it isn’t! It took years of hard-learned lessons and the development of a modicum of wisdom for me to get there, however.

The truth came to me as I was planning for a meeting with one of my driven, obsessive “type A” clients. “Acceptance” and “resignation” are vastly different.

Acceptance is “giving in to reality.” Resignation is “giving up on possibility.” When I accept things as they are, it means that at any given moment, the world exists precisely as it’s supposed to. Today, I can accept that as truth. I’m at peace with it (or as close to being at peace as I get). It does not stipulate, however, that I have to like it! It does not imply that I should not try really hard to improve tomorrow by the actions I take today. I do not have to be resigned to the continuation of the status quo.

Consider my point of view. If it makes sense, adopt it as your own. In any event, come to terms with the difference between acceptance and resignation and its implications for your life. You’ll be happier – I guarantee it.

Note From Rand

In Las Vegas, it’s called going “all in.” Author and consultant Michael Gerber (The E-Myth) calls it going “whole hog plus the postage.” Personal trainer (maybe he should actually be called the personal trainer) Todd Durkin calls it “and then some.” More about Todd and his perspective:

Todd owns and operates Fitness Quest in San Diego; he’s also the Chairman of Under Armor’s^® advisory board. He trains Drew Brees, LaDanian Tomlinson and other world-class athletes, in addition to “normal” people and geezers like me. If you live in the mid-Atlantic area and his name sounds familiar, it’s because he was once the quarterback and captain of the College of William and Mary’s football team. Todd has a
philosophy of life he calls “and then some.” When doing anything, he believes, we should do it “and then some.” You’re a parent? Be a great parent – and then some. A volunteer? Be a world-class volunteer – and then some. At work? Do your best – and then some. Anything worth doing, according to Todd, is worth doing – and then some. He’s right.

My two questions for you:

• If it’s not worth your best, is it worth your time?

• Are you living your life — and then some?

And, here’s a commercial pitch:

One of Todd’s training devices is called TRX. Invented by Randy Hetrick, a former Navy SEAL and founder of Fitness Anywhere, Inc., TRX is what’s called a “suspension training system.” Hailed by Men’s Health magazine as the fitness product of the year, it’s a simple device that uses body weight for resistance, minimizing or eliminating the risk of injury common with free weights. Anyone who know me knows I’m a fitness fanatic; in addition to my treadmill, bike, multi-station gym and dumbbells, I have two TRX systems. At a cost of about $200 each, they’re economical as well as extremely effective and transportable. If you’re interested in the TRX system, here’s a link.

Only one article this month. It continues a theme that has dominated my business, and thinking, of late. Read it; marinate in it; do something about it!

Have a great 4^th of July. Get real, get tough, and get going!

Rand Golletz’s Profile | Create Your Badge

You, the Navy SEALs and Johnson & Johnson

“You know nothing about me. I was lost long before the [Berlin] Wall fell. I was once destined to become a man much like yourself: true-hearted; determined; full of purpose, but … character is easier kept than recovered. We cannot control the things that life does to us. They are done before you know it, and once they are done, they make you do other things. At last, everything comes between you … and the man you wanted to be.”

Wilhelm Wexler (traitor played by actor Armin Mueller-Stahl)
to Louis Salinger (Interpol Agent played by Clive Owen)
in the movie “The International.”

Jim Rohn, business philospher

Note From Rand

Ken Blanchard, “The One Minute Manager” guy and one of my co-authors for last year’s Blueprint for Success, recently celebrated his 70^th birthday. His family had a party for him in southern California that he billed not as his “retirement celebration,” but his “re-fire-ment celebration.” I’m convinced that Ken will live to be 150 and will work right up to the end. He brings lofty vision, incredible energy and a genuine love of people to everything he does. He is totally engaged in living his life.

Age is only a number. If you truly own your life … if you are totally engaged in living your life … if you believe that your own growth and vitality are among your super-ordinate priorities, you must define and achieve greatness along dimensions that you determine are important. Why settle for less?!

Are we connected on Facebook? If we are, go to my “info” page and check out “my beliefs” under my personal information. I frequently ask my clients to detail their beliefs and then regularly assess how they’re doing versus what they espouse. Try it in your own life and be ready for its transformative power.

Lastly, my friend Dr. Denis Waitley, a legend in the personal development field (his audio-program, “The Psychology of Winning,” is still the all-time bestseller), former Navy pilot and Naval Academy grad, shared the statement below on Memorial Day. It’s never too late to remember.

“My name is unimportant; it isn’t even known. My face is unfamiliar; it is never shown. I live only in the hearts of family and my fellow men. Remembered mostly once each year, then forgotten once again. But I feel no sorrow or loss of faith, and my values endure and sustain. For I am the Unknown Soldier, whose life was not in vain.”

My first article this month concerns the Law of Attraction. Here’s the short version: It may be true, but it’s not a law. The second article cites the late basketball coach, Chuck Daly, as an example of effective leadership. He once made the comment, “You want to create an environment where they’ll let you coach them.” That sounds obvious; its implications, however, are profound.

See you in July. Until then, get real, get tough and get going.

Rand Golletz’s Profile | Create Your Badge

Attraction: Call it a Principle; it’s not a Law

A few hundred people crowded into the hotel ballroom. Smoke billowed from the dry ice planted behind the stage, creating a mystical impression. The evening’s speaker, a renowned “authority” on the “Oprah circuit,” emerged from behind the curtain to wild applause from the crowd who believed he would impart clues to their fulfilling their dreams.

He launched into a superbly crafted, hugely entertaining but scientifically flawed presentation. The subject: The Law of Attraction. In case you’ve been asleep for the last couple of years, the law of attraction says that all your thoughts, all images in your mind and all the feelings connected to your thoughts will later manifest as your reality. In other words, everything you have in your life now
has been attracted to you through your mind. I buy it — partially.

A bit of history:

In the early 1900s, Napolean Hill was engaged by Andrew Carnegie to conduct a study of the most successful people in the world. That decades-long study was published in 1937 as Think and Grow Rich. Make no mistake about it, this was and is a great book — maybe the best book ever written about success. I’ve read it and re-read it and encourage you to do the same (Click here to purchase). What I do not encourage you to do is to take it literally and absolutely. Think and Grow Rich introduced the masses to the concept of the law of attraction. It stated unequivocally that success begins with a clear image and definition, as well as with certitude and conviction.

Fast forward to the 1970s: Jim Rohn, Denis Waitley, Zig Ziglar, Brian Tracy and others each began teaching their personalized versions of the laws of success to the masses. They supplemented the message of “if you can conceive it, you can achieve it,” with a good bit of “and oh, by the way, you also have to plan, focus your energy, discipline your actions and work your a– off.”

In the 1990s, the concepts of spiritual enlightenment and material prosperity converged and, at some point, many people who were spiritually inclined but who were not previously disposed to strive for financial success collapsed the two. (I have neither the time or inclination to get into that any deeper here.)

So far, the 2000s have spawned a large number of “gurus” who have pitched the idea that if a person:

• knows precisely what he wants,

• asks the universe for it,

• feels, behaves and knows as if the thing he desires is on its way and

• is open to receiving it all while letting go of the outcome, then

the object of his desire will manifest itself in his life.

I’m OK with all of this, but I would put these assertions in the category of “necessary, but insufficient.”

From my perspective, here’s the rub: Calling attraction a law rather than a principle creates the impression that it survived an unassailable, scientific triage process. Here’s the real deal:

In our world, we use the “scientific method” to test hypotheses before we call them laws. In really oversimplified terms, the scientific method is a process of:

• stating a problem,

• creating a hypothesis,

• collecting and analyzing data and

• drawing conclusions.

Hypotheses must pass through the scientific method before becoming theories, the next formal stage in the journey from hypothesis to law. A theory is a more detailed and substantial explanation of phenomena. It has some predictive value. Ultimately, if a theory is validated over time; if it is shown to be true; it is designated as a law.

Gravity is a law; attraction is not!

The implications (and here’s where my cynical side emerges): I believe that many of the purveyors of the “attraction is a law” school of thought know better. In an effort to sell product to the “I want prosperity, but I don’t want to dirty my hands with the seamier side of capitalism” crowd, they intentionally omit one requirement: hard work.

I’ve been with and worked with enough successful people to know that attraction works magic in their lives. Their belief in their vision, their faith in an outcome and their conviction of their own ability ignite their fire. Their discipline and hard work, however, are the fuel without which their aspirations would be hallucinations.

They Have to Allow You to Coach Them

Chuck Daly died a few weeks ago of pancreatic cancer. In the 1980s and 90s, he was the head coach of NBA’s Detroit Pistons. That team was referred to as the “nasty boys,” an obvious nickname. (Google it for the reasons!) They won back-to-back NBA titles and beat the Bird-led Celtics, the Johnson-led Lakers, and the Jordan-led Bulls in doing so. Earlier, Daly had also coached the University of Pennsylvania. Go Quakers!

A Hall of Fame coach, Daly also led the 1992 Olympic basketball team, known as the “dream team” (Jordan, Bird, Johnson, Thomas, etc.) to a Gold Medal.

Daly’s forté was taking groups of big egos and free spirits and transforming them into teams. What struck me at the time of his death was this comment attributed to him about his coaching style: “You want to create an environment where they’ll let you coach them.”

How obvious; how elegant; how simple; how elusive!

Notice, he didn’t say, “You want to create an environment where they know who’s in charge.” He didn’t say, “You want to create an environment where they fear that if they don’t contribute, they’re outta here!” He didn’t say, “You want to create an environment where they know that their first job is to obey my rules.”

Charles Barkley, no shrinking violet and a member of the 1992 Olympic team, didn’t know Daly well prior to that experience and developed such an affection for him during that time that in the weeks immediately preceeding Daly’s death Barkley called him almost every day. He said that Daly had an endearing way of engendering loyalty: “In Monaco, it would be me, Michael Jordan, David Robinson and Chuck Daly. … We’re all carrying our (golf) clubs and walking and saying to each other, ‘This guy is the coach of the Olympic team and he’s out here carrying his own clubs!’” Great leaders are humble and they’re not afraid of doing the “heavy lifting.”

Daly recognized that today’s athletes are spoiled, self-indulgent and highly compensated, but that’s not the point. The REAL point, the ONLY point is this: How can the coach get the most out of the talent that he has, both individually and as a team? How can he configure and exploit strengths?  How is that measured? Simple — the final score.

I know a lot of executives — “C” level people — who dwell on things that do not, and will not, translate into competitive victory. Those things have a lot to do with executive rights, privileges and prerogatives; they have little to do with winning. These same guys understand Covey’s concept of “starting with the end in mind” when it comes to “chunking down” long-term financial objectives into short-term action steps and working backwards, if you will. When it comes to understanding the implications of Covey’s exhortation on human motivation and behavior, however, those same guys are
frequently clueless.

Don’t be one of them.

Note From Rand

Our second anthology comes out this Fall. Take a look at the book cover – some very august company. I’m really grateful. Two other announcements: First, I’ve committed to climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro in Tanzania in 2010. I need an adventure to spur me onto the next phase of my life, and while I always keep myself in aggressively strong physical shape, I’ll need to take that to a whole new level for this. Next, my first solo book, Re-defining Type A: The Journey From Hard-Headed to Tough-Minded Leadership, will be published in 2010 with the help of my editor Barbara McNichol.

She has contributed to the success of several non-fiction best sellers. I’m grateful to have her support. I expect to follow the book up with speaking and workshops with that theme. More
later! …

Facebook is emerging as the social networking site for business and personal reasons. I resisted; now I’m a convert. More than 200,000,000 members can’t be wrong. You should join now. If you’re already a member, click on my link and then on the “info” tab on my page to get a peek into my psyche.

Rand Golletz’s Profile | Create Your Badge

Two great articles for your reading this month: The first, “Repeat After Me: I Will Covet My Game Changers,” is a brief look at why business needs to do a better job of differentiating among people’s performance levels. It’s an introduction that I’ll explore more deeply in future issues, but I didn’t want to ignore it, because I’ve been thinking about this a lot. My second article, entitled “Dealing With Dissonance,” examines how and why most people deal with their internal conflicts when making important decisions and recommends an alternative, more productive path for you.

I’m confident you’ll enjoy both articles. I’ll see you next month. Until then, get real, get tough and get going.

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. I’ll be saying more about this subject in a future issue.

Dealing with Dissonance

Since 2004 John, a seasoned pro, has invested money for Lloyd’s of Lubbock, a top ten life and property/casualty insurer. During that same period, his skepticism of our entire mortgage system (and the derivatives it spawned) grew. Believing it was a house of cards, he was not bashful sharing that belief firm wide.

Between 2005 and 2007, Lloyd’s purchased a large number of credit default swaps, one of the derivatives that tanked our financial system in 2008. John’s personal involvement was initially minimal. As time passed, however, his superiors drew increasingly on his analytical ability to assess and buy swaps. He had the “juice” required to create a compelling business case, which they needed to justify their purchase of riskier swaps as time marched on. As their reliance on him grew, John became more and more agitated.

The further down this road John went, the more the gap between what he believed and what he was doing, widened. He was experiencing cognitive dissonance.

We experience dissonance when we discover inconsistency, or conflict, among our various beliefs, between our beliefs and our behavior, or between our behavior and our self-concept. (An example of self-concept would be someone believing that “I am a good person who makes sound, ethical decisions.”)

People experience dissonance when they either say things they don’t mean (even if they THINK they mean them), behave in ways that are in conflict with their espoused beliefs and values, or behave in ways that contradict how they regard or value themselves.

This all sounds like a brainful. Read on for the implications of dissonance in both your business and personal life.

Dissonance is an unpleasant motivational state (when people experience an unpleasant state, they’re motivated to reduce or eliminate it) that cannot persist; something has to change. Most people in most situations, however, change their beliefs rather than their behavior; it’s just less painful. To illustrate my point(s), I’ll employ two examples: The first is a single woman who has regularly immersed herself in affairs with married men, all while espousing that doing so is immoral and believing that she is fundamentally good person. The second is an executive who has consistently and publicly professed that the downside of laying off people to reduce expenses far outweighs the upside of saving money but is now being forced by his CEO to terminate 20% of his staff to reduce expenses. I cite those examples within four customary actions that most people take to deal with dissonance:

• Changing their belief to coincide with a behavior. Even though the woman in my example says she believes that participating in extramarital affairs is wrong, her involvement in them may lead to changing her belief rather than her behavior, because that may be easier for her than stopping an affair. In the business example, the executive might decide that “layoffs to reduce expenses are OK under very limited circumstances, and that this example falls within the guidelines of ‘limited circumstances.’”

• Changing their understanding of the behavior, after the fact. This most obvious situation occurs when people rationalize. It’s the “everybody does it” excuse or the “I have three friends who did this and they’re good people, so it can’t be that bad” rationale. In the woman’s case, this might involve her (informally, in her own psyche) surveying the world and concluding that “many people have affairs; it’s not that big of a deal.” In the business example, it’s easy to envision the executive deciding “layoffs to reduce expenses — especially in a lousy economy — are just the way things are today.”

People who are prone to rationalizing also typically surround themselves with people who also rationalize. They create “shells of limited perspective” that seal out contrary evidence. They also frequently judge others for behavior for which they, themselves are guilty, but quickly admonish others not to judge them, as they view their own circumstances as “unique” and their behavior, “justifiable.”

• Reducing dissonance by acquiring and interpreting new information. The woman in this example might review available literature in an attempt to validate her behavior. Perhaps a magazine story once defended having affairs. The executive could search for examples of companies that have handled layoffs in a really humane way and use that to reduce the guilt he feels.

• Reducing the dissonance by minimizing its importance. This is the “In the grand scheme of things — in the history of the cosmos — it’s just not that big a deal” excuse. It’s easy to envision each of these people employing this perspective.

My point is not to make value judgments about the two people or the situations I used as examples to explain dissonance. Here’s my point:

Effective people

• learn from their own behavior,
• minimize rationalization,
• change their behavior rather than their perspective,
• surround themselves with people who “call them” on their behavior rather than people who provide convenient examples of equally questionable behavior.
• “belly up to the bar,” take accountability for their results — positive and negative — and commit to learning from their experience.

You will rarely hear or see effective people making excuses, pointing fingers or casting themselves in victim roles. Unlike those who live a “Groundhog Day” like script, making the same mistakes over and over again, these people make new mistakes that teach new lessons and cultivate wisdom.

In your life and business, are you a person who confronts your results head on? Do you welcome unpleasant feedback? Do you invite “the truth” into your life? Highly effective executives, highly effective people, live their lives based on aspiration rather than delusion and convenience.

Note From Rand

This month’s Real Deal is a bit of a departure for me. While I always use examples from my work to illustrate my points, I have never before revealed much about myself, save for vacation excursions and sports-team preferences.

April’s only article, entitled Create a Meaningful Life, has one overriding proposition: If you want to create a meaningful life, you have to know what it is you aspire to stand for and when you’re going awry of what that is. To illuminate my points, I’m (somewhat uncomfortably) shining a light on myself.

I think you’ll find some ideas worth chewing on, and I’d love to hear (or read) your thoughts on the matter.

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

Create a Meaningful Life

If you want to live your life with meaning, you must understand the following: The dissonance and discomfort you feel when your espoused beliefs and values collide with your actions are warnings. This goes for your business life as well as your life, in general. Every once in a while, put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and document your beliefs and values in a granular way. Periodically, go back and add, subtract and clarify as your life gives you feedback. As a test, implement the “lousy feeling in the pit of your stomach” test. When you’re feeling really bad — I mean really bad, after an action you’ve taken or a result you’ve gotten in your life, ask yourself the following question: “Which of the beliefs or values I espouse am I violating?” The answer to that question will help you to clarify, to reaffirm or to refine your perspective and to do better the next time. Never lower your expectations to accommodate your human frailty. Never concoct excuses or rationalize failure. Do not — ever — whittle down your aspirations to artificially bolster your performance. Instead, raise your game to bring you closer to your aspirations and move your life away from your fears and incrementally toward your best!

I’ve been ruminating on this a lot lately. In an abbreviated, narrative fashion, my own governing beliefs and values follow:

I’ve never been satisfied “mailing in” my life or operating on autopilot. I have explicit beliefs detailing what I want to stand for.  I always fall short, but that’s not the point. The point is this: Not many things in life really matter. The few that do, matter completely. Most people lament the perceived wrongs that they feel the world has done to them or how things should be a certain way and aren’t. They do not dedicate themselves to “showing-up” in the world in a way that they can be proud of — being measured by their actions and being an example. This perspective isn’t very popular or sexy today because it explains the world in terms of what we owe it, rather than what it owes us. It rejects victimhood in favor of personal ownership. I believe that we have to stand for something, or we’ll do just about anything.

I believe in the virtues of integrity, loyalty, honesty, courage and valor, accountability for my actions, discipline and perseverance, although I have failed miserably, many times, in each of those arenas. The last two items on that list have always been oversized challenges for me because I grew up in a home in which people didn’t demonstrate those characteristics abundantly, so I had to find other role models. Truthfully, the virtues I embrace are all aspirations because I don’t measure up to my own expectations on any of them. When I’m tested, however, I use those character traits as checkpoints. In so doing, I often make decisions that don’t feel right at the time because doing what’s right doesn’t always feel comfortable or pleasurable, but I usually look back later and decide I made a good call — again, not always, but usually.

I believe in relentlessly searching for truth. Most people fill their lives with others who feel sorry for them, who over sympathize with them, who validate them — people who pat them on the head and say: “There, there now, you did the best you could. The problem isn’t you; it’s the world.” They then go about making the same dumb decisions and taking the same, ineffective actions over and over and over again. They develop no wisdom. They stay stuck where they are — no better off than the guys 5,000 years ago who dragged their knuckles on the ground and wrote cryptic symbols on the walls of caves. I believe in surrounding myself with people who will set an example for me rather than people who will fuel my shortcomings with their own ineffective behavior or with validation that does me no good. I want the people in my life who challenge me to be my best. I also frequently ask myself, especially in the midst of problem-solving or in the aftermath of an event:

“What lesson is life trying to teach me right now?” Often the initial, most obvious answer to that question is not the real answer, and I need to dig deeper or wait. Sometimes, the lesson takes years to percolate and surface — often too late to readdress the issue that generated the lesson in the first place. The clock that life uses to cultivate my wisdom is not synchronized with my patience.

Many of us — and I’ve been guilty of this more often than I care to admit — select friends, business associates, spouses or significant others who give us only cowardly feedback. These well-meaning enablers make us feel good about where we are. I believe that real friends, true friends, courageous friends put truth-telling above peacekeeping. They put the welfare of their friends above the survival of comfortable friendships.

In a reference letter that one of my CEO clients recently wrote about me to a peer at another company, he said the following, “When Rand opens his mouth, what comes out is the truth.” That’s the best compliment I’ve ever gotten. It steals my breath when I think about it. I believe in pursuing the truth even if it takes me to very uncomfortable places. I frequently find that my truth represents reality as I want it to be rather than reality as it is, and I have to adjust my truth to accommodate the truth. I hate it when that happens!

I want meaning in my life. I’m speaking practically, not idealistically. As John W. Gardner once said, “In my experience, it’s a rare person who can go through life like a stray cat, living from day to day, taking its pleasures where it can and then dying unnoticed.” In my life, I want the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts. I want it to build to a resounding crescendo I can be proud of and then at the end, I want to die in my sleep in the arms of the person I love most, knowing that I appropriately balanced what I took from life with what I gave to it.

I believe that personal growth is our primary, lifelong mission. It gets easy, especially in later years, to become imprisoned by attitudes, preconceptions and resentments that have long outlived their usefulness. We can stay vigorous, curious and changeable as long as we live, although they require increased rigor and tenacity as we get older. My 50s have been my most substantial and painful growth years. Someone once said, “Life is the art of drawing without an eraser.” We can’t change what we have done, but we can change ourselves to do it better the next time. Occasionally — not often, but occasionally — when we’re really lucky, we get a “do over.” That’s God’s second chance, and we shouldn’t blow it.

I’ve learned that our feelings evolve out of the unique way we each process our experience. As such, two people can develop divergent emotions from exactly the same experience, so labeling (our own or other people’s) feelings as either appropriate or inappropriate makes no sense. Feelings don’t come with rights or a rulebook; they just are. Understanding the implications of that insight and manifesting it in our daily interactions is really tough; it can also be life changing.

I believe in the power of wisdom. Wisdom is imparted by experience, but not always. There is a huge difference between having ten years of experience on the one hand, and one year, ten times on the other. Experience does not translate into wisdom unless reflection, judgment and permanent behavior adjustments ensue. In recent years, our society has given judgment a bad rap. We are constantly admonished not to be judgmental, yet the highest performing people are constantly judging. When we decide whether to accept a job opportunity, we’re judging. When we select our friends, we’re judging. When we decide to drive to the office on a particular day rather than taking public transportation, we’re judging. When we choose to forgive someone who has harmed us, we’re judging. When judgment results in persecution, when it comes from a place of smug certainty, when it fuels our own moral superiority, it’s destructive. When it propels our own, productive evolution, when it promotes personal growth, when it enables sound decision-making, it’s beneficial.

I believe that character is both forged and revealed by commitments we make and keep. I’m not talking here about our orientation to goal setting, achievement or purpose, although those are important components of commitment. I’m talking about keeping our word, without exception. When we make a promise, when we give our word, we should consider it a sacred trust, regardless of the size or type. When we say we will do something, we should actually do it. When we say we will be somewhere, we should be there — every time! In our culture, we regard commitments as things we make frequently and keep infrequently. It ought to be the other way around.

I believe that one of life’s biggest challenges — maybe the biggest — is figuring out which bridges to cross and which ones to burn in an effort to achieve happiness, without doing too much damage to ourselves and others along the way.

I’ve historically and erroneously regarded honor and happiness as mutually exclusive. I’ve perceived honor as “doing the right thing” and happiness as “doing the selfish thing” and frequently felt morally superior for choosing one path and overly guilty for selecting the other. With that perspective, neither is a winning choice and in that regard, I’ve been a slow learner with unnecessarily rigid boundaries. Conversely, when those two alternatives present an irreconcilable dichotomy that legitimately requires a choice, I find that choosing honor over happiness is more ennobling, even if it’s less viscerally pleasing.

I’ve usually been a person that others can count on, and I relish that. I’ve frequently been the guy who rides in on the white horse to save the day. In a foxhole when it hits the fan, I’m a “go-to guy.” At the end of the game, I want the ball, and I’m not afraid to take the final, decisive shot.

I’m grateful that I’m much better at all of this today than I was a decade or two or three ago. I’m still a work in progress, however. I do find that as I get older, my character and my reputation are increasingly the things I cherish most, and that, without exception, they are more easily protected and defended than they are recovered, once lost.

Now you know my governing beliefs! I still get much higher grades in elocution than execution. What do you believe, where do you stand, how are you doing and what are you doing about it?

Honest answers to those questions will change your life.

Note From Rand

Welcome to summer. Well, not exactly, but if you look at the picture, it might as well be. It’s Aruba, it’s March, it’s perfect weather and here I am until March 8, soakin’ up the rays. I’m sure my dermatologist, Dr. Henry Lee of Germantown, Md., would not appreciate this. I intend to explain to him that I’m trying to overcome a vitamin D deficiency!

I’m joined by my wife, the lovely and wonderful Morna, who I managed to corral from the casino where she’s losing the mortgage money and having a GGGRRREEEAAATTT time doing it! We all have our own way of gettin’ our groove back!

In my first article this month, I cover the importance of “accessibility” for organizational leaders, but with an admonition. When you are accessible — really accessible — you assume a unique responsibility not to do dumb things with what you learn from people. It’s informational, instructive and cautionary. I believe you’ll get a couple of “ahas.”

Keeping with my recent trend, my second article reviews two books by former NFL coach Tony Dungy. He is a man with his priorities in order, and he has some important lessons worth sharing and worth learning.

Bon Bini. Until next month, get real, get tough and get going.

Accessibility Requires Responsibility

One of the things I was proudest of, as a senior corporate executive, was the degree to which people on every rung of every company for which I worked had personal access to me. That was never a burden because it was the source of my personal value proposition. If people needed to discuss a problem or issue, whether they reported directly to me or to someone four levels down (I hate the term “down,” but it describes reporting relationships in shorthand, so I’m using it here), they almost always felt comfortable using me as a resource. With accessibility comes responsibility, however.

Here’s a story from my former life as a corporate executive:

I had just been promoted. Previously, I had about 200 people reporting directly or indirectly to me. When I woke up on Monday morning, my new team numbered about 1500. I was livin’ large.

In every job I had ever had, I made a point of scheduling about 5 total hours a week of one-on-one time with people in my organization(s) who didn’t report directly to me. I did that for a variety of reasons:

• To influence people’s thinking, particularly around bigger strategic issues. People need to understand how what they do fits into the whole and why that matters.

• To set a tone and an implicit expectation for people reporting directly to me: You need to know your people — their hopes, their fears, their motivations, their triggers.

• To enable me to peer into people’s brains and get a sense of the quality of their thinking.

• To establish rapport and trust.

With that level of openness and engagement, however, comes a high level of responsibility.

At the three-month mark of my then short tenure, I had already had initial one-on-one discussions with about 150 people. Those meetings generally began rather formally. Each person came to my office with a note pad as if he was eagerly anticipating sage words that had to be recorded. I went out of my way to begin these sessions by inquiring about each person’s life story to break the ice. It’s amazing how quickly barriers came down.

My discussion with one young lady remains a vivid memory to this day. She entered my office red-faced and shaking telegraphing her nervousness. Sharing her life story was not at the top of her agenda. I mentioned that she looked concerned or worried, got up and fetched a bottle of water for her. Almost immediately, tears started welling up in her eyes.

She launched. Using every example she could think of, she spent about 45 minutes citing the ways in which her boss was a jerk. She included vivid examples; it was overwhelming.

At the conclusion of her diatribe, I said the following:

“So, you obviously have a problem, and if I allow you to leave now, we’ll both have your problem.”

She looked quizzical, and I continued:

“You see, if you leave my office right now, you’re going to believe that because you shared this problem with me, I’m going to solve it for you. You’ll expect that I’m actually going to do something to make your problem go away. Now’s the time for you to tell me exactly WHAT you’d like me to do about your problem.”

I went to my credenza and got a box of Kleenex for her. The welling in her eyes had become tears on her cheeks.

“Well, I don’t know,” she said.

I stood up, walked over to the white board on my office wall and documented a list of alternatives that included:

• firing her boss;

• discussing the issue with her boss;

• etc.

She didn’t like any of my ideas. Great, because I had no intention of actually DOING any of the things on the list.

“So, here we are,” I continued. “I fear that you’ve inferred that I made a commitment because I listened to your complaint and I’m the guy in charge. Yet, when I tried to outline some specific, alternative actions, you won’t empower me to act on your behalf. So, we’re left with two alternatives: Either you’re just whining, which I know you wouldn’t do because we’ve talked in the past as a group about the uselessness of whining, or YOU intend to do something about this and you came to me for support. I’m assuming that the latter is the case, and that you intend to take the reigns of this yourself and solve your own problem. Is that right?”

She replied timidly, “Well, yes.”

“Great! So here’s what I’m going to do to support your bravery. Every Monday morning, I’m going to call you to see if you’ve actually had a discussion with Frank (not his real name). This problem is between the two of you, and you need to solve it. I’m going to be pretty relentless, so be forewarned: Hearing from me weekly will be a lot more of a pain to you than actually having the discussion you need to have with your boss. OK, I think we’re done here.”

She shook my hand and left my office. I was certain that she was thinking: “Yeah, right, he’s going to call me every week!”

I did. For five Mondays in a row, I called her to remind her of her commitment. Each time, she said she’d do something; each time she didn’t, until week six.

I got a call from her. She sounded excited and asked if she could come to my office and discuss the matter. I said, “Fine,” and she arrived a few minutes later with a HUGE, smug smile on her face.

“Well, Frank and I had the discussion,” she said.

“Great! What happened?”

“Well, he was completely clueless. He had NO idea I had a problem with him. Anyway, it was an emotional exchange; I could’ve done better, but we agreed to get together again after I collect and compose myself.”

I helped her brainstorm an approach. To this day, I have no idea if she used it. Her relationship with Frank improved to the point of it being productive, but never wonderful.

Word of this conversation spread throughout the company. Presumably, this young woman told one person; that person shared it with someone else, etc. The reputation that I developed as a leader because of this incident carried me through many tough times. As a result, people gave me the benefit of the doubt when even I wasn’t always sure they should.

Some critical lessons for you as a leader:

• People will find out about your interactions, even the private ones. Make them count!

• In an effort to appear to be in charge, many leaders solve problems for people instead of helping people to solve their own. Being the big kahuna does not mean being the causer of all action and the decider of all decisions. Your job is to enable people to function at a high level, independently and interdependently, but not dependently.

• Many leaders react to the last interaction they’ve had. Someone complains; they must do something. Don’t be one of those. You’ll create organizational schizophrenia.

• You MUST plan your conversations. As Jim Rohn says, “Casual conversations are casualties.” The words you choose, your body language, your tone will all be interpreted by people whose world views, perspectives, beliefs and experiences are different than yours. You must test for common understanding; you must make sure that what you’re saying is what other people are actually hearing. I recently heard a CEO deliver a presentation to an “all-employee” meeting. At one juncture, to make a valid point, he said, “We’re not here to make friends.” His intention was to convey the notion that everyone needed to focus on the tasks at hand in order for the business to be successful. What people heard was, business and friendship are mutually exclusive (or maybe even contradictory). Bad news for his credibility.

When planning the nature and level of your own engagement with people, ask yourself the following questions:

• What do I want the other person/people to get out of this?

• What outcome will serve my needs, as well?

• What outcome will preserve/advance the quality of my relationship with this person/these people?

• What result will better enable this person/these people to make an enthusiastic and relevant contribution to our company?

Notice that I did NOT list as one of the questions: What outcome will demonstrate clearly that I’m da man?!

A Note From Rand

We’re now on the downside of winter. I grew up in Connecticut, so one would think that my psyche is impervious to the cold weather — not so. As I get older, I long to be further and further south, away from snow in any quantity and any Fahrenheit temperature that begins with a number smaller than 5.  Speaking of which …

I’m off to Aruba for two weeks beginning the last week in February. I’m tempted to send my assistant, Kelly Johnson, an Aruba jpeg of me to include in the March edition. If I do, it’ll show me with a parrot on my shoulder and an iPod in my ear, reclining. What good is great Caribbean weather if you can’t use it to make other people miserable?

Check out our two-and-a-half articles this month. The first is a warning about the potential impact of creeping, unnoticed change on your success. The second is an admonition to spend your time dealing with matters about which you can actually do something. The third is a book recommendation.

Do not let the pundits and prognosticators convince you that our financial maelstrom seals your economic failure. You can only rise above the mess if you start from a place of power and conviction. Play defense — certainly — but keep attacking on offense.

Don’t Succumb to the “Boiled Frog” Syndrome

Take a six-quart pan. Fill it with water. Put it on the oven. Turn the heat on high. While waiting for the water to reach a rolling boil, catch one mid-sized frog. When the water achieves that boil, toss the frog in. Don’t worry, the frog won’t get hurt. The shock of the temperature change will compel the frog to immediately leap out. It happens every time (unless you cover the pan with its lid after you toss the frog in).

Now refill the same pot with warm water. Put the frog in before turning on the heat. Enjoy watching the frog demonstrate the backstroke. Turn the heat on “low.” Every couple of minutes, increase the heat incrementally until the water is boiling. At that point and with apologies to the ASPCA and PETA, you’ll have one very dead (and well-done) frog. The gradual change in temperature will go unnoticed by the amphibian until it’s too late.

What just occurred is called boiled frog syndrome. “Why should I care?” you ask skeptically? Think of the frog as your organization and the water in the pot as the aggregate of external forces and interests (competitors, customers, distributors, suppliers, capital providers) acting on your organization. As incremental change occurs in the speed and magnitude that each of those forces exerts alone, it’s easy to ignore it, regarding it as an isolated inconvenience, or consider the need to respond decisively with skepticism. It’s easier to make subtle course corrections, not wanting to rock
the organizational boat too much.

The accumulating impact of those forces together and over time, however, overwhelms. Eventually, any passive organization (and the CEO and his/her executive team) will get cooked! It’s impossible to ascertain the time or pinpoint the specific reasons for most organizations’ death. It happens subtly; it happens incrementally, until the very end. It’s almost always insidious, because what happened, how it happened and when it happened can’t be pinpointed, even in the postmortem. Because cause and effect relationships aren’t predictable, absolute, linear and time bound, executive teams get lulled to sleep; they lapse into a coma; they don’t wake up.

Many leaders analyze issues as if they’re static rather than dynamic. Even when they do a good job of analyzing individual issues, they typically neglect the fact that problem solving requires not only analysis but synthesis. That is, all of the elements impacting their organizations have to be understood together and while moving!

Most executives have at least reasonable analytical skills. Inadequate aptitude at synthesis, however, is a large reason for poor results. It’s also one reason that many organizations’ long-term plans are not strategic plans. Solid strategic thinking and planning require synthesis.

It’s Just Gravity

Picture this: A light plane goes down in the Arizona desert. A team from the NTSB descends on the scene to investigate what happened. After three months of rigorous study and analysis, they’re ready to report. They call a news conference.

The NTSB administrator approaches the podium. You’ve seen this guy. He’s wearing gray, double-knit pants with brown, crepe-sole shoes and a short-sleeved, white shirt with a mustard stain. Yes, he also has a pocket protector. His horned-rimmed glasses are held together at the nose bridge with masking tape. He fumbles through some papers and begins, “After our three month investigation, we reached the conclusion that this plane would not have crashed if it hadn’t been for … GRAVITY!”

He said, GRAVITY!

I guess he’s right. At some level, if there was no gravity, there’d be no plane crashes. The point is, however, you never hear people blame or complain about gravity. It just IS! You have to deal with it, so you just do! You don’t complain about it; you don’t blame anyone for it.

Many of the problems we whine about are gravity. Competition is too brisk; customers want higher quality and lower cost; macro-economic conditions change like the weather; your boss is over-bearing; HR doesn’t have all of the training programs you need; manufacturing doesn’t produce uniform quality.

It’s all GRAVITY! You have to accommodate all of this stuff in your planning and execution, but whining about it doesn’t do any good. It isn’t going to go away to suit you or to make your life easier.

In life and business, lots of gravity issues impede our success. Differentiating those phenomena from those things you can control or at least influence will help you maintain your sanity while increasing your effectiveness.

A Book You Need to Read Now

Peter Schiff is a libertarian investor. A couple of years ago, when virtually all of the economic sages were calling for a mild recession, he called the meltdown. He got the timing right, and he got the elements of the crash correct. What he’s predicting for our economic future is not bright. You can catch many of Peter’s thoughts on YOU TUBE. In one particular discourse, he makes minced meat out of both Ben Stein and Arthur Laffer. Better yet, read his book, Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse.   Here’s a quick link to the book from Amazon

His thesis — one that I’ve been sharing for much of the last year in this newsletter myself — is that we have consumed and borrowed our way into the mess we’re in. Now, our Federal Government wants to increase debt to levels never seen, in order to save failing companies and preserve a completely dysfunctional status quo. To use an analogy, this is tantamount to you charging your mortgage payments on your VISA card and then paying VISA with your MasterCard. An economy does not deleverage by borrowing more. Unfortunately, economic reality does not comport with election cycles.

Buy and hold gold until it hits $1,500.

Until next month, get real, get tough and get going.