C-Level Leadership, by definition, is STRATEGIC; Get outta the weeds...

Too many C-Levels spend too much time with block-and-tackling tasks and not enough time with real strategic leadership efforts. The differences are huge. And frankly, we need more leaders not do-ers.

Senior-most leadership is not for the faint at heart, nor is it a logical progression, really, from any position. There’s little specific preparation for that CEO role, only the hope that we’ve picked up some of the specific needs by observation. So, why don’t more step up to that true-leadership challenge?

The answers may surprise you... for instance:

Leadership has risks. It’s one thing to be able to say, “I’ve done all I could.” It’s another thing altogether to say “We’ve done all we can,” and recognize you are taking someone else’s word for that fact. And now you’re responsible for its veracity. Lots of risk – risk that you no longer personally control.

Leadership is situational. Always. There’s no 12-page guide for leadership telling you the answer is on page 4, section 2, paragraph 4. Each and every situation is unique; each requires specific, yet individual thinking and subsequent decision-making. Frankly, it isn’t all that easy. If we are accustomed to – and like – specific, defined situations, CEO leadership is a significant departure.

It’s lonely at the top. It’s much more personable a couple of levels down... Your employees, however, need a leader; they don't need a shoulder, a buddy, a simpatico, or a commiserator. If you want a friend, buy a dog. Regardless of camaraderie, the role of the CEO is lonely. You have no peer group within the organization.

All of this is not to say there are not rewards; CEOs enjoy the ability – and alas the responsibility – of setting the vision for the organization. Further, you now impact the success of many, versus just you or a few. Finally, the financial rewards are commensurate, but only if/when you really rise to the challenge at hand.

But that’s just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leaders, Step Up & Motivate... And no, you can't use your wallet!

There are many misguided leaders among us who believe that all motivation is about dollars -- that if you have sufficient, budgeted dollars, you can motivate effectively; if you're cash-poor, then suddenly you are de-motivating...and that it's not your fault.

Absolute malarkey. BS. Balderdash. Pure unadulterated bunk.

Let me be perfectly clear: That's Bullshit.

Let's not get wrapped up in our shorts on definitions, but consider: Incentives are payments of some sort to entice certain behaviors and performance. Motivation is the desire to achieve certain behaviors and performance. The difference may seem subtle; in reality, it's a chasm like the Grand Canyon.

So, without publishing a treatise on leadership & motivation, here's 3 things within your grasp today that can drive effective motivation:

1. Communications. Make sure performance and objectives expectations are realistic and equally aligned. Be honest and open with data and information; allow your staff to determine what "enough" information is, before you arbitrarily decide. Provide a good, forthright look at the "big picture." Eliminate unnecessary blaming.

2. Involvement. Here, you'll determine what your staffs' key motivators really are. Provide opportunities for real, substantial input. Force decision-making down to more appropriate levels. Increase ownership and buy-in through inclusion in both front-end planning and progress efforts. Eliminate unnecessary hierarchy.

3. Recognition. I'm not talking here about "employee of the month/quarter/millennium." I am speaking about making sure your management attention is appropriate for someone's performance level -- don't micromanage a key performer just to satisfy your control-freak tendencies. Provide developmental/learning opportunities within the work and project itself -- allow employees to grow through "doing."

Motivation isn't about the money. It's about effective leaders stepping up to lead, and taking personal accountability for that leadership. Money can certainly provide an incentive for behavior changes and specific performance, but you can't buy the real motivation that provides impetus for employee acceptance of personal accountability -- the responsibility to do "whatever is necessary." That comes from skilled leadership, not the ATM.

But that’s just me...

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership: You're doing it wrong...

-- Gump was right, 'stupid is as stupid does'

No question that leadership takes effort. Equally, there's no valid question that leading has become more difficult today than just 2-5 years past (seems like an eternity ago, doesn't it?).

Having said that, it seems some go out of their way to make things more difficult than they need be. It's like taking the wrong way to get somewhere, all the while knowing it's the wrong way, but still doing it anyway.

Are you kidding me? Is this "leadership" stuff so easy that we can make it unnecessarily difficult? Personally, I think not. Let's take a page from our doctor's playbook who, after being told by his patient that "it hurts to do that," the doctor simply says, "Well, then don't do that anymore."

Or, to quote the inveterate Bob Newhart... Two words: Stop It!



This can be easier than we think. For example:

1. Leadership is timeless. Remember that most leadership principles, theories and concepts (and most applications) haven't changed much in over 2,000 years. Sure, some demographic movements have caused a change in some application, but by and large, human behavior and leadership success today are consistent with a couple of millennia ago...

Just because some consultant or academic comes out with a new glossy-backed book, extolling us to do something we think we've been doing already for two decades, doesn't make it new. Nor does it mean we should change what we're doing, necessarily.

2. Insanity defined. I think it's been attributed to Albert Einstein: 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.' Stop that. If it didn't work for your boss, and it isn't working for you, it's time to take a new approach. No, I don't subscribe to the "anything would be better" line of thinking, but it may be time to bring in a Magi, or someone similar to help discover new ways to repeat old successes...

3. You can't fix stupid. I've heard this for years, though Ron White may have made it currently popular. It still has a huge basis for leadership thinking... our folks must bring three things to the table: Work ethic, honesty, and sufficient intellect.

Hire for great organization fit, cultural adaptability and intellect. We can add/improve abilities, develop skills, even provide experiences to build on.

But we can't fix stupid.

Focus on what's really important, keep leadership as simple as possible, cultivate trust and credibility. It's easier than you might think...

But that’s just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership and the Devil's Advocate: Saint or Sinner?

"Yes" men, "No" men, or some happy medium ("men" used for convenience, and is in no way gender-specific)??

Do we want our closest and/or brightest to agree with us merely because it was our idea? Or are we actively seeking constructive, challenging dialog??

Must we always have complete, obedient agreeance (not a real word, but my baby sister Elizabeth always used it, so here it is), or do we really want diversity of thought?

Personally, I believe that when really smart, well-intentioned people disagree, the final outcome or decision is always - ALWAYS - a better one.

Further, I'll also opine that "diversity of thought," particularly in leadership decision-making, is one of the only valid business cases for intentional, purposeful "diversity" in an organization.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

And let's be clear: I'm not talking about that crap-magnet Joe/Jane pain-in-the-butt employee who always disagrees, simply for the sake of disagreeing. Nor am I referring to those schmucks among us who are simply rabble-rousers looking for attention via a cause they can denigrate.

I'm talking about smart, well-intentioned people disagreeing and able to substantiate their disagreement with logic, data, and thought. I believe it's a good thing. So, how do we get it to happen? Well, I'll tell you how...

First, you must provide a forum. There has to be an accepted arena, vehicle, or secret handshake, code-word, or ring-knocking ceremony where those with contrarian views know they can share.

And don't be shy - advertise this forum.

Next, like birth control, there has to be a "safety-first" mentality. Those who may disagree must know (not just hear) that their well-thought, well-intentioned disagreement is welcome - in fact, expected - in the course of regular dialog. And that they won't get shot between the eyes for doing so.

Finally, it's gotta matter. Naysayers, contrarians, devil's advocates - whatever the name - have to see their push-back accepted as input and occasionally alter decision-making some of the time if you really want it to continue.

Being "accepting" is good, but not good enough. You've got to be prepared to actually USE their unpopular inputs. Go figure...

I once worked with a CEO who would frequently tell me that "If you and I always agree, one of us in unnecessary, and I'm keeping my job."

Early diversity at its best. Thanks, Russ.

But, that's just me...

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Succession Planning -- Hey Exec! You've got to do YOUR part!

Succession Plans are Just That... Plans. They still need EXECUTION.

Succession plans and leadership development efforts are useless if the targeted executive doesn’t step up and do his/her part.

This is an interesting and pertinent topic, as succession planning is a significant part of my practice, and by “planning” I mean “managing expectations” as well. I’ve crafted numerous, detailed succession plans before, complete with developmental roadmaps, years-to-ready” charts, and well-plotted charts for high-potential employees.

None of it is worth a squat if that earmarked, high-performing executive doesn’t do his or her part.

Just as supporting material, I wrote an article for The Journal of Quality and Participation entitled, “Next in Line: Real Succession Planning.”

First, what makes succession planning and/or execution a big deal anyway?

1. The war for talent rages on – we can’t continue to count on hiring to bail us out,
2. Successfully developed managers are better leaders, even if the succession plan isn’t engaged, and
3. You can’t have a long-term view of growth and a short-term look on leadership. You just can’t.

Now, for the executive wanting to really demonstrate readiness, I’d recommend the following (I’m assuming the executive knows clearly what the new job entails):

1. Meet people, and help where you can. Expand your scope of influence, in a helpful way. Sit down with Marketing, if that’s not you, and find out what you can do to support them. Be sincere – other executives today can smell a hidden agenda a mile away.

2. Make sure you aren’t so indispensable as to be immovable. Intentionally and proactively train and develop someone to step in for you should you be called up. I’ve seen many, many promotions derailed – or at least frustratingly delayed – until a replacement for the potential promote could be developed (or hired).

3. Most importantly, do your current job, and do it damned well. Be the best. Make sure you are fulfilling current expectations, responsibilities, and accountabilities. It must be clear to all, both above and ‘below’ your spot in the organizational food chain that you are the right person for the job, or at least, not the wrong choice.

Then, our well-conceived plan came “come together.”

Make it so, number one.

But that’s just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Impact of Employee Engagement: Leadership Myth or Misnomer?

We keep hearing about this wonderful thing we should strive for... this holy grail for employee contentment. This thing called Employee Engagement.

Personally, as a specific goal, I think it's a crock of crap.

First, get the academics out of the way; the only part of any definition that matters for employee engagement is “increased productivity.” Everything else is eyewash, and confuses engagement with contentment. Not that there’s anything wrong with happy, contented employees (there isn’t), there’s just no credible evidence that they’re more productive. Using that as a backdrop, answering any “impact” question becomes easier:

1. Use existing productivity measures to measure productivity changes. Some organizations use revenue per employee; others cost per pound; still others may use unit costs or revenue. The specific measurement isn’t as important as the fact that it directly measures productivity, not engagement per se, since engagement is only worth an investment if it leads to discretionary effort; discretionary effort, by definition, increases productivity.

This measure is the gold standard – the litmus test for employee engagement. There are some other, less direct but viable measures:

2. Active participation in development. Engaged employees want their skills developed and improved to do more, to become more valuable, to offer even more significant discretionary effort. Metrics here like voluntary enrollments into training, requests for development, decline in PiPs, requests for upward transfers and promotions, and available bench-strength for succession effort.

3. Less problematic. Engaged employees create fewer problems for managers. Internal complaints, managerial time spent on interpersonal conflicts, less follow-up (more time for other duties), and so on are all indicative of an engaged workforce.

Bottom line – it’s not engagement, specifically, we’re measuring here. To be at all useful, it’s the impact of that engagement that matters. And frankly, that’s all that matters.

But that’s just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership: Size Matters... doesn't it??

Some CEOs make a lot of money.

Their Vice Presidents don't usually make as much, and the directors, managers, and other leadership positions still further down the organizational food-chain make even less.

I know, I know... you're thinking "Well duh, Kevin; did you come up with that 'blinding flash of the obvious' on your own, or did you have help?"

My question here isn't about the dinero, per se. And it's not about relative value among leaders. No, my question is about the absolute value of leadership. Is the absolute value of a senior leader greater than that of a less senior leader to those s/he leads?

I think not.

Like many of you, I travel frequently, and I thought about this question when I boarded a puddle-jumper for the 47 minute flight from Houston to Tyler, Texas (new client -- hello to Rick, Roger, and Ricky). It occurred to me then, that the pilot of this 24-passenger prop-job likely made considerably less money than the pilot of the 737 I'm on right now.

But if he screws up, I'm just as dead as if he had made twice the money.

In other words, to the recipient of the leadership behavior, it doesn't matter that some other leader may make more money, have a bigger office, or have a fancier title. In our selfish, singular worlds, what matters is how that leader leads... to me.

Think about it...
• All leaders must create and leverage relationships to succeed, and
• All leaders are responsible for developing employees so they can support and succeed at their vision, and
• All leaders personally and directly affect the total career and employment environment of those they lead.

Just like those pilots, regardless of the size of their aircraft or wallet, personally and directly affect my safety as a passenger.

So, then, if I were to continue my unsavory double entendre approach to this article - all the while you keeping your mind out of the gutter - I might say that it's not the size of the leader that matters, but what the leader does with that size that really counts.

But that's just me...

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership & HR Compliance -- 5 easy steps

A colleague in Human Resources recently asked me... if given the opportunity to directly educate line managers on things important for compliance, what should they include?

Never mind my aversion to HR being the compliance cops. Never mind that.

Never mind my distress at HR wasting quality time with line managers discussing solely compliance issues. Never mind that.

So, "never minding" those things about the question that really, deeply bug me, I told her "Here's what I would want them to know:"

1. If you aren't certain what to say, shut up. It's OK. Really.

2. No employment decisions while angry. Short of a double-homicide, all decisions can wait until clearer heads prevail.

3. An overview (VERY brief) primer on various legislations (kept relevant and again, decidedly brief). "Here's what it is, why you should care at least a little, and when you should call for help."

4. Remind them that damned few employment decisions are as cut-and-dried as they may think. Teams of employment lawyers billing hundreds upon hundreds per hour frequently can't agree.

5. Never start a conversation with me that begins with "I probably should have talked to you first, but..."
(ok, the last one was admittedly selfish)

But to at least touch on the never minds: don't forget that effective leadership, creating a respectful work environment, having employees believe -- really believe -- that you want them to be personally successful... these are the things that prevent frivolous lawsuits. Focus on those things, and put that time with line managers to better use.

But that's just me..

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Staples Crappy Customer Service -- Let's Pay Money to Piss 'em Off !

You know, retail establishments -- particularly those with any real online presence at all -- are pretty damned effective at pissing people off for free... there's seldom any reason for those idiots to actually PAY money to do so.

Staples, and their oft-touted, yet woefully inadequate warranty service should be no exception.

Yet here I am, writing about them. You've gotta know where this is headed...

I bought a second office chair (don't ask, it's really necessary) at Staples, paying $349.99 + $28.87 for sales tax, + another $44.99 for a warranty (+ another $3.71 in sales tax), for a total of $427.56.

For a $350 chair. With a "replacement" warranty which the Staples clerk called "the best in the business." Guaranteed easy. Call, tell 'em it's broken, they issue a cash card for a replacement chair. Easy peasy.

Yeah, right. How about "not so much..."

A month after taking the chair home, it breaks. Big. Really broken. I think, "Well, crap. I need the chair, but at least I have the world's best warranty to get myself a new one." I call the number on the registration, and get Staples Customer Service. I tell 'em the problem, getting kind of happy I bought that damned warranty.

Oops. Seems the cut-off for the "automatic cash card payment" is $250; my chair would have to be inspected first, for possible repair. I'm ticked, but what are you gonna do? She schedules a repair service (for my office chair) to come out and inspect. Earliest appointment is three days away. Who knew that the office chair fixing business was doing such gangbusters?? Not I, for certain. But I do now...

Out comes Esmerelda. Says the chair can, in fact, be fixed; she'll order the part, should take about 7 days, then I'll be rockin' in my office chair again.

Not so fast, KB. 7 days pass, no Esmerelda, no part. My wife calls for me, speaks with her, she says, "Oh, yeah, actually it's Staples that must order the part, let me call them now and I'll call you right back." That was 9:00am, and you guessed it, no return call. The next day, I call, and leave a message for Esmerelda. No return call. I do the same thing that afternoon, and again the following day. And the next. And the next. Nothing. The furniture-fixing business must be crazy around here.

I call Staples again. This time, the lass on the phone tells me, "Why did they send a technician to inspect it? I always just get a Supervisor to bypass that $250 requirement, and issue a cash card." I bite my tongue, not wanting to screw up a potential fix to my problem by venting on the single helpful Staples customer service rep so far... we agree on the details, she said "card's in the mail."

No, really. About 4 days later, well ahead of the 10 days she promised, I get my card.

For $301.00. No, I'm not kidding. I didn't actually know it was for $301 until I went to Staples for the sole purpose of getting a replacement chair. They ran the card, and explained the problem. What??? Now, strangely enough, I'm getting a wee bit ticked.

I call Staples customer service (that name is a stretch goal if ever there was one) and explain. She isn't sure what to do, or how. Finally, she tells me (around 10:00am) that a Supervisor will call me today.

Of course, that was a lie. At 6:00pm, I called back. The young man on the phone, punching a series of buttons rivaling an airline gate agent when you change a flight, says, "yep, we sent out a new card today for $48.99." I lamented about the lack of a return call, to which he replied, "sorry about that."

So, to recap: I paid almost $430 for a $350 chair, am promised a super warranty that, in reality, takes 13 phone calls, two in-store visits, and over a month to resolve a clearly covered defect.

This is not customer service at its best. Some lessons should be available here, for instance:

1. Empower your people. Twice I was referred to a Supervisor. Both times, to merely verify an accepted practice, not to make any abnormal or unusual decisions. Institutional micromanagement is the greatest single example of poor/absent leadership that exists.

2. Have integrity. Do what you say you're going to do. Anything else makes you a liar, and untrustworthy. Is that what you want?

3. The end-game, particularly when you are in the wrong, should be to make the customer happy. Not only did they miss an opportunity to gross-up my card a few bucks as a gesture, I never did get to speak with one of those promised supervisors, and the additional card they are sending me is down to the penny the exact amount of their financial mistake. No offer for my wasted time, gas, effort, or frustration.

Office Depot, you won back my business. By default.


Poorly done, Staples. Poorly done. Your "EASY" button is broke all to heck...

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Successful Leadership vs. Really Stupid Policies

Sometimes leadership and policies are mutually exclusive.

Don't get me wrong -- workplace policies have their place.

They can help bring clarity to ambiguity, for example. They can create some level of consistency in management. And well-written (uh,oh, there's a nasty qualifier) policies can make leaders' jobs simpler, as they provide somewhat standardized solutions to simple, mundane, and repetitive issues.

They can also, however, be dumber than dirt.

Case in point: Last Saturday morning, my girls talked me into taking them to one of those typical box-like breakfast joints in our area. Our server, though pleasant and reasonably efficient, had a name tag on her blouse. Except, it was blank. There was no name actually on the name tag.

We joked about it, as did some people in a nearby table, and our server just smiled.

My curiosity piqued, I had to ask... "Why, pray-tell, are you wearing a name tag with no name?" Her response? "We have a policy that you cannot work your shift unless you are wearing A name tag. I was fairly astounded, and asked "Even if it doesn't have a name on it?" She said "Yep. It could even belong to someone else..."

Whaaaaat??

I corralled the manager, much to my wife's and daughter's obvious chagrin. I asked him if this was true; he replied, "Yes sir, our corporate policy doesn't require the name tag to actually have her name on it... there's nothing I can do if she's wearing a name tag -- any name tag."

It was all I could do to not choke him.

People, this is when policies get just plain stupid. Dumb. Idiotic. Never, ever, allow a poorly-written policy to supplant effective, positive leadership.

Policies don't lead. They support leaders. If they don't support leaders, change 'em or ditch 'em.

To Whomever is Writing Such Drivel... Stop it. Consider the doctor's Hippocratic oath when compelled to write your next inane policy: First, do no harm.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Succession Done Stupidly: Negligent planning at the highest level

Headline (edited for brevity): Swiss bank UBS named Axel Weber as its next chairman in a surprise move that robbed rival Deutsche Bank of its top candidate to succeed its chief Josef Ackermann in 2013.

Make no mistake, this is Board negligence on the part of Deutsche Bank, pure and simple.

They should vote out the entire lot.

This sort of crap really ticks me off. They call it "succession planning," and the key movement in their entire plan is based on someone with which they have zero relationship, and zero knowledge of hiring success. In fact, they were merely hoping that this über-CEO would be available whenever they beck and called.

Apparently, Weber saw it differently.

Succession planning and replacement planning are not necessarily the same thing. It's fairly common that one or two of your key positions will require a look outside the organization, so that, and and of itself, is not catastrophic.

This colossal blunder should teach us two things (three, if you count the revelation of the sheer stupidity of Deutsche Bank's board):

1. When your senior-most operations position must be filled from outside -- as part of a defined plan -- your succession plan is kaput (I'm liking this whole German theme), and you are making the conscious decision to not develop those who could assume the responsibilities.

Why would you do something so idiotic?

2. Anytime -- anytime -- your defined succession plan requires you to go outside the organization for necessary talent, make certain that either (a) your anointed wunderkinder is both aware and agreeable to your advances, and (b) that, should Herr Von Bundespräsident develop wanderlust and decide to align with another power, you have options.

Read my lips: If your succession plan, any plan, relies solely on the hiring of one specific outsider to fill a key, necessary role in your organization, you have no plan at all.

Succession planning should prevent stupidity, not cause it.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Go Ugly Early -- Or, "How to get things done when you're bat-shit busy"

What can we do to better manage our workday, to free up time for what’s important to our life?

This is a constant challenge for me as a small business owner, and for my clients. I have some things that seem to work in my world...

1. Go ugly early. Pick the biggest, baddest task on your list (you DO have a list, right?), and knock it out first. Ignore the pain; bodybuilders tell us “no pain, no gain,” and it applies to work priorities as well. Knock out the hard stuff first.

2. Got lists? Speaking of lists... make sure you have at least two. One for “all things I must do sometime,” and one for today. And make the one for today actually do-able. You are infinitely better off mentally to complete four out of four tasks that day, then to only complete four of nine. The completion is the same; your mental state is better.

3. Success, not perfection. Perfection is great if you’re doing brain surgery or dropping atomic bombs. For the rest of us, it’s an added level of effort we can’t afford. We want a task done successfully, not perfectly. Don’t waste half your day on rewrites, trivial edits, or consternations about what you could do better.

In reality, prioritization and successful time management (if there is such a thing) is mostly about discipline. Decide you’re going to do it, set a timeframe for it, and “git-r-done.” Reward yourself handsomely for accomplishments.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

My Leaders Aren't Leading... What's up with that??

It's frustrating. We put people in charge of departments, functions, shifts... in charge of people.

Then, nothing.

Of course, I don't really mean "nothing," as that would make the decision a bit easier. What I mean, of course, is nothing much. They may handle some perfunctory management tasks, maybe some rudimentary (and elementary) supervision of people who don't really need much. They probably even take care of most of their own personal performance responsibilities.

But, they just aren't leading.

Why is that??

I've said this before, and I'll say it again... I'm a simple guy. Occam's Razor is my guide for most decisions - simplest is usually the best. If you hear hoof beats, it's probably horses. Not zebras.

In that vein, here goes: When leaders don't lead, there can be only three potential causes:

1. They don't want to. Maybe we mismatched or misplaced them when we promoted someone who (a) didn't really want it, or (b) doesn't really believe that they are a leader. In the former, we frequently take our best operator (accountant, technician, sales rep, etc.) and "promote" them into leadership, thereby losing our best performer and gaining our worst leader. Bad juju.

If the latter, it can be caused by a leader leading friends, or people they've known and worked with for a long time, and they just can't fully grasp their new leadership responsibilities. It's time to educate them. Spell out specific expectations, then manage to those expectations. Performance management 101.

2. You won't let them. Maybe you're a micro-manager (see related article), or even worse, a micro meddler, creating drive-by crises then moving along to your next unsuspecting victim.

Perhaps the organization - intentionally or not - has created a structure that just doesn't allow the freedom for others to lead. Too much oversight with too little accountability can create this situation.

3. They don't know how. Remember, without formal development, most of us learn leadership like we learn a lot of things - osmosis, watching, listening, and emulating others. Sometimes that's a good thing, other times not so much. Frankly, it's a crap-shoot. A great method for reinforcing, but a lousy way for learning.

If you really want your leaders to know what they are doing, teach them exactly that. Build their skills on the foundations and competencies that you need in your organization and make sure their leadership values (not necessarily style) are consistent. I can think of no better way to create leaders that succeed in your organization.

This isn't really difficult stuff. I'll say again that leadership practices, concepts and theory - and most applications - haven't changed much in a couple thousand years. Let's not complicate it unnecessarily.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com