Are Organizations Reluctant to Accept the Existence of A Crisis Situation?

It's not so much that organizations, per se, are reluctant to accept that they are in a crisis situation. It has more to do with the core perceptions of those in the organization who can define when a situation constitutes a crisis—those in an organization's decision-making loop. There is no crisis if "I've got everything under control." Often, employees who are not in the decision-making loop have concluded that a crisis exists long before the decision-makers come to the same conclusion.

Assuming that some kind of "control limits" have been devised, i.e., measurements of various aspects of operations are being made against a particular set of standards, in the minds of the decision-makers, a crisis doesn't exist as long as the measurements either remain within the control limits or do not exhibit a trend toward one of the limits. Obviously, the perceptions depend upon whether the control limits have been properly established, maintained and timely observed.

Low level employees work where 'the rubber meets the road." Decision-makers usually don't work there. They depend upon getting necessary information through the channels established for that. Often, there is excessive lag-time in the process and the message can become garbled.

The real truth is: (1) Crises usually start small and are "below the radar horizon." At that point, the situations don’t look like they will become crises. They are looked at in isolation—out of context. This makes what is happening look like an isolated case, rather than the beginnings of a pattern, and therefore, not a problem that needs immediate attention. As a result, when the problem does "pop up onto the radar," i.e., it gets big enough to “get in your face,” it’s easy for the decision-makers to have the impression that the the problem has appeared suddenly, without warning, almost "overnight." Cognitive dissonance has a strong hand in this. (2) Crises usually occur when one or more basic principles has been totally overlooked or, if not totally overlooked, under-appreciated.

Work and Sexism

There's an article at usnews.com headlined: "The Myth of the ‘Queen Bee’: Work and Sexism." It's subhead reads: "New study finds that, in the workplace, women are often held to a different standard than men." The article refers to a "new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science."

 

(Full Disclosure: I haven't read the study, itself.) Without commenting on the truth of the headlines, I feel I must comment on the rationale of the writer of the article. 

 

Baloney!

 

Putting aside any possibility of internal statistical or interpretive bias, let's look at the study as described by the writer of the article. It does not address "THE workplace" as announced by the headline. It addresses "A workplace" of a particular bureaucratic and operational character, a police organization.

 

If I understand anything from my past involvement with policing organizations, it is that they have an infrastructure characterized by an acculturation of their personnel toward the optimization of the use of force (physical or psychological) through the exercise of the police power of the State. Stripped to its fundamentals, the exercise of police power ultimately rests upon what goes on in the mind of a person who (literally or figuratively) has a finger on the trigger of a gun pointed at another person.

 

Any conclusions drawn from the study could be valid when restricted to that kind of infrastructure/culture. I make no other comment about their validity in that context. They are invalid, from the start, however, if extrapolated to any other workplaces not sharing a nearly identical culture.

 

Whatever merits it may have, when applied within the specific government sector workplace having been studied, this study cannot legitimately be generalized to the private sector workplace. It appears to have been ripped out of its proper context for the purpose of sensationalism.

 

Shame, shame, shame on the writer of the article

Leaders, Culture, Economics and Politics

Part 05

In Part 04, I iterated my intention to highlight the differences in the ecology of the strategic planning process of leaders under capitalism and socialism. This part continues and concludes some of the background for understanding the differences. (Obviously, there is a ton more.)

The differences influence the part that ego plays in how a leader operates. My hope is that in by exposing the underbelly of Socialism, the comparisons with Capitalism will become more easily evident. I used the past rather than the present because, if properly motivated, people can more dispassionately dig up the history on their own without having to deal with their biases of the current day.

Frequently, to divert attention, totalitarian ideologues have tended to advance the concept that the Marxist-Leninist system is a political opposite to Mussolini’s Fascist system, as well as to German National Socialism and the various other ‘fascist’ systems in the thirties. (There were a bunch of them.) Mussolini was especially adamant on the point. (But, he was anti-everything.)

Yet the concept of opposites is based on inadequate criteria and even false premises. A spectrum that puts Communism and Fascism/Nazism at diametric extremes distorts reality in significant ways. Yet, rigorous comparisons of the ideologies, in most cases, have not been made. There have been cut short by the Western Intellectuals' Groupthink reverence for the great "intellectual" orthodoxy that Communism was a great and well-meaning experiment (trying to build Utopia) which, unfortunately, "created some excesses." No kidding! More than 100,000,000 "excess" dead!

According to Rummel, "Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counter revolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle. In a war millions may die, but the cause may be well justified, as in the defeat of Hitler and an utterly racist Nazism. And to many communists, the cause of a communist utopia was such as to justify all the deaths. The irony of this is that communism in practice, even after decades of total control, did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made their living conditions worse than before the revolution."

Underneath it all, the end they sought was to control the factors of production, just in different ways and with different means. The supreme irony is that all claimed that what they were doing was to free their people from want by redistributing wealth. In fact, their major accomplishment was to institutionalize misery.

The bottom line of this series is that planning, strategic or otherwise, whether in a Capitalist or Socialist framework, implies both control and the power to exercise control. Control implies the existence of two entities: an entity that wields the controlling power and an entity upon which the controlling power is wielded. Further, Control requires the exercise of power and a structure to transmit it between the controller and the controlled.

Strategic planning requires the balancing of ends, ways and means. The basic environment in which the leader does his strategic planning is as important as his abilities because they govern his use of his abilities to lead. They also govern what is available to feed his ego.

Leaders, Culture, Economics and Politics

Part 04

Previously, I cited the ecology of leadership and Socialist leaders. Then, I digressed a bit into the world external to the leader where my thesis is that no business leader can avoid dealing with the total human ecological environment.

Returning to the externals of my original example, my intention is to highlight the differences in the strategic planning process of leaders under capitalism and socialism. The essence of the difference lies in the fact that under socialism, to succeed, the leader must be leader-centric, while under capitalism the leader must be customer-centric. In the leader-centric context, it is easy to see how ego can play a significant part in a leader's approach to strategic planning.

Continuing with background information, much of the confusion surrounding Socialism, in addition to it's being self-contradictory, stems from the fact that the socialist movement takes great pains to frequently circulate new labels for itself as a way of covering up its true identity. As each attempt to make it work fails, another leader, who wants to give it a shot and put his own brand on it, appears. So, as each label gets worn-out, it's replaced by another label which raises hopes of an ultimate solution of the insoluble basic problem of Socialism—until it becomes obvious that nothing has been changed but the name.

As to a planned economy, which one might people choose? For those who might think a planned economy tailored to the wishes of advocates all along a spectrum from democracy to dictatorship are different; they are not, except in non-essentials. All are precisely as socialistic as the Socialism propagated by any other socialist group. The differences are not among the ends sought, they are among the ways and means to achieve them. This makes differentiating Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini like differentiating citrus fruits: different sizes and colors, maybe, but still citrus, nevertheless. Take the following examples.

The communists of the Soviet Union called themselves Socialists (as in Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR, etc.). In Germany, the Nazis called themselves Socialists, as in "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei," or, in English, National Socialist German Workers Party. (The term, "Nazi," is just the shortened form of Nationalsozialistiche.) Their significant differences were political. Until Operation Barbarossa, they were as thick as thieves, cooperating to carve out satraps from their surrounding territories.

Hitler was favorably impressed with Italian Fascism. The Italian Fascists called themselves Socialists. Mussolini, a Marxist who left the communists because he thought he could do things better and faster by putting his own spin on them. In fact, toward the end of his "term in office," (after the king had arrested him and the Nazis had rescued him, the Nazis set him up as the leader of a puppet government. He was titled "il Duce di Repubblica Sociale Italiana" or "Leader of the Italian Social Republic."

As to fascism (after "fasces," the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome), Mussolini said, "Fascism is a religious concept...[it] should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Thus, fascism is just a highly nationalistic socialist movement. With this statement, "il Duce" was trying to give his political philosophy the color of a religion and, at the same time, blend it with economics. (With such integration, could he, perhaps, have been using concepts taken from Mohammed's model as a guide.)

More in Part 05

Leaders, Culture, Economics and Politics

Part 03.

I'm taking a detour from my original path to address a couple of pertinent side issues. I'll get back on the path in Part 04.

Someone pointed out to me that the way in which a leader reacts has more to do with the person than his/her circumstances. Taken in isolation, and limiting the consideration to how a leader reacts to his circumstances, this is undeniably, logically true.

Different people react differently in the same circumstances. On the other hand, however, whether this makes any significant difference in a given set of circumstances can be determined only by measuring the outcome. There may be more than one path to success.

The outcome depends not only upon the internal (psychological) resources the leader possesses, but the constraints under which the leader is able to bring those internal resources to bear in those circumstances. In practical terms, assuming a given level of internal strength in the leader, attempts to devise a strategy that requires a greater level of external strength or resources than are available to the leader is bound to fail. It is to the latter that the externals refer. In strategic planning both must be recognized. This critical consideration is recognized as a part of a SWOT Analysis.

A personal SWOT Analysis is fine for self-evaluation but, in practice, the only times most people care about the leader's internals are when they want to study him for the purpose of emulation or when he screws up. When the leader's on a roll, most people couldn't care less what he's thinking. It's when he screws up that they want to know, "what was this guy thinking, and why was he thinking it?"

Furthermore, in my world, the leader isn't paid to contemplate his navel. The leader is paid to deal with the external world where everything else is. We assume that, as a leader, he has something of great value to bring to the table.

To get anything done, though, a leader has to deal with the organization's SWOT analysis instead of his own. That kind of strategic planning has to do with the world outside of the leader's head. With no disrespect intended, he can do his own SWOT (and pick lint) on his own time.

Designing a strategy is not a trivial pursuit. Part of the problem people have in strategic planning is that not a lot of people understand strategy. It's important to understand clearly not only what strategy is but what it is not. Policies, opinions and concentrations on internal factors are not strategy.

Strategy sits atop a "three-legged stool." The "ends" of the strategy, the "ways" the strategy will be executed and the "means" to be used in the execution comprise the three legs. If any one of the three legs is missing, there can be no viable strategy devised.

SWOT Analysis forces us to look at both internals and externals. Extended SWOT Analysis is an even stronger tool in that respect. A good working definition of strategy (John R.Boyd) "To improve our ability to shape and adapt to unfolding circumstances, so that we (as individuals or as groups or as a culture or as a nation-state) can survive on our own terms."

It's worth remembering that the term "strategy," comes from the ancient Greek, meaning, "thinking like a general."

More in Part 04 

Leaders, Culture, Economics and Politics

Part 02

Previously, I cited the ecology of leadership and the unholy trio of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini as Socialist leaders. So, what about the strategic planning of leaders operating in the area of economics of a Socialist System? If the ecology of leadership is important, for the answer to this question to be meaningful, a contextual background is required.

First, the three traditionally recognized factors (or means) of production are land, labor and capital. (In a literal sense, of course, anything that contributes to the productive process is a factor of production.)

Second, although Socialism is a relatively recent phenomenon, it has a history of variation. It came into being as a result of the Industrial Revolution and it was Karl Marx who defined it. Over time, other "practitioners" have come up with "improvements," or variations, on the theme.

Third, to many people, the concept behind the term "socialism" is similar to the concept behind the term "god." In this respect, everybody can have a different take on the meaning and implementation. So, Socialism is an article of faith for many, perhaps for most, of its adherents.

Fourth, the term describes a system characterized by centralized government planning and control of the uses of national resources, private as well as public, operating "in the name of the people." Lenin said, "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything." The function of a leader under this kind of system must be quite different from the function of a leader under a market economic system.

Fifth, although it is true that leaders have made certain "corrections," to the "original," or "pure," form of socialism, it is also true that the resultant forms diverge only in non-essentials. We can describe it more accurately if we start from the stated goals of socialists. They want to control the factors of production. Their ideal is not "equal economic opportunity" but "equal economic results." This has serious implications because, to that end, in the name of fairness, they plan to take from the more productive and give to the less productive, or to the nonproductive. This idea used to be called, "leveling". More modern usage calls it the "welfare state," or "spreading the wealth," or "redistribution of income." Among other measures, the expropriation mechanism of taxation is to be used to accomplish the "redistribution."

The essence of the foregoing points is, whatever the individual "takes" or descriptions, none of these can avoid the central point, which is: the aim of Socialism, no matter the variation in form or label, is its further propagation and, because the two systems are incompatible, ultimately and inevitably, the destruction of Capitalism.

The implications for leaders and their exercise of leadership and strategic planning are enormous. For example, those who do not consider themselves to be Socialists fail to realize that, given the pernicious nature of Socialism, their advocacy of so-called progressive political interventions in some economic matters must imply the ultimate establishment of full government supremacy in all economic matters; in short: Socialism.

How does a leader function, and what are the indicators of successful leadership, when Communism, Fascism, Socialism, State Capitalism, Authoritarian Economy, Planned Economy, Corporatism, Welfare State, etc., are rooted in the same concept? And what is the "magic ingredient," the resource that leaders doing Strategic Planning in a Socialist economy have available to them that those in a Capitalist economy do not have? This ingredient is one of the most attractive reasons that persons embrace Socialism; the veritable flame that attracts the moth.

Some will say, "this all sounds so confusing." Others will ask, "how can it be true when I have been taught otherwise?" We'll look into these issues in Part 03.

 

Leaders, Culture, Economics and Politics

Part 01

Some people I know like to talk about leaders as if they were above the considerations of culture, economics or politics. Perhaps, well and good, but only up to a point. That point is, such separation is artificial. It may be fun to discuss the issue over a beer but, any way you slice it, it describes a fantasy universe.

In reality, leaders don't operate in a vacuum, they operate as a part of subsystems that operate within cultural, economic and political systems. It is a truism that, no matter how high a leader may be in a hierarchy, somebody is measuring his performance. And, the metrics of leadership are governed by "the rules of the game" established within the various cultural, economic and political subsystems that comprise the milieu in which the leader functions.

I would be egregiously remiss, therefore, to overlook the human ecology of leadership, i.e., the totality, or the pattern, of relations between leaders and their environments. As well, I can't overlook the various degrees of reflexive interactivity that obtain between leaders and the systems in which they operate. In fact, to overlook these real world conditions would be to relegate the substance of this thread to a fantasy world where the most important discussion is the discussion centered on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

To elucidate: in the present context, I will use the term, ecology, not in the sense of describing the physical environment of Earth, as it is most commonly used. Instead, I will use the term in its human sense, i.e., as a sociological term dealing with the spatial and temporal interrelationships between humans (in this case, leaders) and their cultural, economic, political and social organizations. It is my thesis, then, that leaders live in human ecological systems comprising many ecological subsystems.

The interrelationships between leaders and the systems within which they work, are enormously influenced, if not governed, by cultural, economic and political drivers. As a consequence, leaders are free to act only within the constraints imposed by the drivers extant in their respective sector subsystems.

In the area of economics, for example, under Capitalism, the demands on leaders in the private sector subsystem are different from the demands on leaders in the government sector subsystem. The reason the demands are different is because the constraint-sets in the sector subsystems are different. In turn, the constraint-sets are different because the structures of the sector subsystems are different. Likewise, the structures are different because the prime operational drivers of the sector subsystems are different. The private sector subsystem is driven primarily, but not exclusively, by the profit motive. (There are many not-for-profit businesses.) The government sector system is driven primarily, but not exclusively, by the cost-justification motive.

What about leaders operating in the area of economics of a Socialist System? I will pick that up in Part 02.

Why Should A Company Have A Strategic Plan?

I was asked recently about why it was important for a company to have a strategic plan. Doesn't having a vision statement and a mission statement suffice?

The idea of having a strategic plan is to help to minimize the effects of being “blind-sided” by unexpected events and to be able to build into the organization’s infrastructure the ability to respond appropriately to changing circumstances both in the internal and external environments. For these reasons, preparing a strategic plan requires the consideration of alternative actions, all of which are intended to bring the strategy to fruition, although by different paths of action. It is a requirement for sustained success, primarily because it allows the organization to stay ahead of changes in its environment.

Without a strategic plan, the operating elements of the organization are in constant confusion. People mill about, confusing activity with accomplishment. Money and time are wasted on go-nowhere projects. Morale remains low. It is difficult to get people to participate in organizational activities. Everything that seems to “go wrong is always “somebody else’s fault.” And usually, everything is going wrong.

Drafting a strategic plan requires the planners to “think strategically.” A significant problem with thinking strategically is that few people sufficiently understand “strategy.” In fact, although the term is thrown about by almost everyone, most people don’t agree on just what it is.

So, what is "strategy" and how does one think and plan strategically? To simplify, “strategy,” as differentiated from “tactics,” which are the actions taken to fulfill a strategy, comprises the position one takes to reach a particular goal. In other words, “strategy” provides a direction so that, over time, choices of courses of action can be made that have a high probability of propelling the organization consistently in the direction intended.

Obviously, if an organization has no vision, i.e., where it wants to go, and no clear mission, i.e., what it wants to do to get there, planning strategically is impossible.

Can He Do It?

Recently, someone asked me to comment on a situation in a company where the CEO, who is also the founder and principal business development resource, wants to move from day-to-day focus to a leadership role, planning for the future. My off-the-cuff comment was:

“Given the phrasing of your question, this may be easier to say than to do. The situation is cloudy.

If he is the CEO, he is already in a leadership position, but apparently has not been fulfilling some major requirements of that role. It seems obvious that he has not seen that planning for the future is at least as important for him to do as immersing himself in the minutiae of day-to-day activities. At this point, he is surely in for some really heavy lifting.

That he is still the principal business development resource doesn’t speak well of his actual intent or his organizational abilities. Changing the focus of his thinking from the operational to the strategic will take an enormous effort on his part. Given his probable history, whether he can make the required transition is problematic.

I am assuming, from your depiction, that this is probably not a sole proprietorship and that it is a small incorporated company where the CEO has been wearing all the hats from Day One. Most likely, he has not been planning for his succession or his exit from the business, for if he had, he would already have set a training program in motion, have delegated appropriately and wouldn't be in the present situation.

As the situation now stands, it appears that he wants to stay as CEO, but wants to change his job content. Accomplishing this kind of change will require an almost wholesale change in the corporate culture that has developed around him as a result of his exclusive hold on business development. He will need to re-engineer the business to make it happen. I am willing to make a small wager that he will not be able to do it on his own.”

What do you think?

Skillsets as Hats

The skillsets required of a Leader are different from those required of a Manager.

The Manager wears the hat of the tactician, tending to approach his work in a fairly rigid context, with a tight focus on performance based on accounting periods of some length (month, quarter, fiscal year, etc.) Because of this type of constraint, the manager is almost forced to view his activities as involving a unending series of self-contained, unconnected, or at best, loosely-connected, independent operations. He lives in the present or the near future and works primarily under conditions characterized by a larger number of certainties compared to uncertainties.

The Leader, on the other hand, wears the hat of the strategist, viewing his activities as involving an unending progression of interdependent operations that are connected in an unbroken chain on a specified course leading to a particular destination defined by the mission statement of the organization. He lives in the medium and long term future and works under conditions characterized by a larger number of uncertainties compared to certainties.

As a practical matter, because the number of people who feel comfortable dealing with certainties is greater than the number of those who feel comfortable dealing with uncertainties, more people feel comfortable wearing the Manager Hat than feel comfortable wearing the Leader Hat.

There is, of course, no prohibition against one person wearing both hats...as long as he has both skillsets and feels comfortable wearing either hat. Of course, it is easy to see that certain difficulties will arise when one person tries to wear the two hats simultaneously.

Leader - Manager, Is There A Difference Or Not?

Is there such a thing as a leader? If there is, what makes one a success?

Some say the difference between a leader and a manager is mythical, i.e., the existence of the difference is imaginary or unverifiable. Others say it's just an exercise in semantics. Are we trying to slog through a semantic morass here?

Leaders are like graphic vectors. Vectors have two dimensions: magnitude AND direction. Magnitude, in this context, is a synonym for success. For the most part, people tend to engage with magnitude/success. But, what about direction? Let's examine a bit of history.

Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili took on the nickname, "Stalin," (Man of Steel) believing it reflected his stature as leader and protector of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Stalin didn't have much charisma, but he was a pretty good organizer.

Adolph (Shicklgruber/Heidler) Hitler took on the nickname "Fuehrer," or "leader." He modelled the title on Benito Mussolini's self-appellation, "il Duce," meaning "leader," which, in turn, comes from the Latin word, "dux," meaning "leader."

Hitler and Mussolini were enormously charismatic. Hitler, in many of his speeches, kept thousands of people spellbound for hours at a time. He was a master of rhetoric and excelled in the promotion of "groupthink." The German people absolutely loved him. Mussolini trailed him in that ability, but he was, nevertheless, a very articulate person. Having been a journalist, he was also a skilled rhetorician.

All three, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini, were Socialists bent on creating Socialist States to match their versions of a Marxist Utopia. Where Hitler's and Mussolini's Socialist versions differed from Stalin's was primarily in how they would achieve their Socialist ends.

To achieve his vision, Stalin believed that government (in the name of the people) should own the factors of production directly. The other two believed they could achieve the same Socialist ends indirectly, i.e., by owning (controlling) the owners/controllers of the factors of production (forms of a Corporativist system in which economy was collectively managed by employers, workers and state officials by formal mechanisms at the national level.) Regardless of version, their efforts resulted in the establishment of totalitarian States. Millions of people were killed in the process.

It's ironic that these men, as individuals and leaders, tried to set up political and economic systems based on a bankrupt philosophy that minimized the individual to maximize the collective. Although these leaders were able to capture hearts and minds, their direction was toward evil.

Is there any doubt that all of these people were "leaders" of great "magnitude?" No.

Direction, however, is another thing altogether.

Management and Leadership

Management and Leadership are two different things. The former has to do with things; the latter has to do with people.

Leadership is an intangible. It is a mental construct. Its existence can be ephemeral. It is high maintenance. Either it is there or it is not. There is no “almost” or “just a little” or “kinda like” leader.

Leadership cannot be created nor be maintained in the absence of personal sacrifice and effective communications on the part of the leader. And, those communications must be “broad band and full duplex.

”Harkening back to when I was first commissioned as Ensign in the Line of the U.S. Navy, I quote the late Rear Admiral Harley Cope. What he said has never left my consciousness. It set the tone for my understanding of what being a leader and exercising leadership really mean.

The Admiral wrote the following description of “character” for the July 1951 edition of The Naval Officers Manual, A Ready Reference to Helpful Information and Counsel for All Officers of the United States Navy and the Marine Corps:

“Assuming that there are three officers … each of whom respects, and is respected, by a group of men, what qualities will one possess that will inspire the men to look upon him as their leader? They will lean toward the one officer possessing the strongest character. By character is meant integrity, courage, morality, humility, and unswerving determination.”

“Character is a spiritual force. It is a reflection of a man’s grip upon himself, the degree to which he is able to dominate the baser instincts that beset us all.”

“Because men know that the conquest of one’s own weaknesses is a far, far, more difficult task than any other, they tend to believe that he who can conquer himself, can also conquer whatever problem is at hand. That is why, in civilian life, the masses look to a man of character to lead them.”

“Your first job, then, is to learn to know your own weaknesses and conquer them. Our fears are a key to our weakness, because we fear only the things which we feel we cannot do well. We all have fears. Force yourself to conquer and to face squarely every situation you are afraid to meet. It is not being afraid, but running away, that weakens character. When you have accomplished this, you will have developed character.”

The Admiral expressed, very well, what Leadership is.

Leadership v Management

If it is true, as I aver, that the respective roles of leaders and managers are functionally different in their essential characteristics, then it is important to differentiate them.

Although it may amount to an oversimplification, the essential skills of leader must lie in the area of appealing to “hearts and minds;” (to use a possibly over-used, maligned or misunderstood phrase). Communication is the core competency required for this.

I do not mean to say, nor do I mean to imply, that a leader uses manipulative practices. What I do mean is that a leader understands that people are largely irrational in their decision-making and he, therefore, takes account of that fact. As a result, leaders tend to be very tolerant of even extremely high levels of ambiguity, and can concentrate on dealing with the irrational, i.e., the most EFFECTIVE employment of his most valuable asset: his people. In this sense, he is the compleat marketer.

On the other hand, managers tend to concentrate on the rational, i.e., the most EFFICIENT use of available resources. The different positions are often subject to conflicting pressures.

The bottom line is, when one is both a leader and a manager, to be both effective and efficient, it is required that a functional amalgam be formed between the two. From this amalgamated position, the leader/manager can both deploy and protect his people.

Here’s what is probably counterintuitive to civilians, most of whom think that serving in the armed services of the United States is to live a life oppressed by regimentation. Truly, the degree of freedom to exercise my own initiative was considerably greater while I was in the Navy than when I was more active in the civilian business environment. In the latter environment, the term, “teamwork” seemed to be honored more in the breach than the practice and there seemed to be more "prima donnas" and incompetents.

No disrespect intended to those who think this, but I take serious issue with a statement offered to me lately that: “in a war situation you depend on your leader for your life and fortunately in the private sector we tend not to rely on our leaders to that degree.” Speaking as a former Commanding Officer of a U.S. Navy warship, I can say that the opposite is true. It is the Wardroom Officers and the crew upon which the Captain depends for his life. If they aren’t “with” him, he might as well be dead; nothing good is going to happen and he will experience not only “the loneliness of command” but his life will be miserable, to boot.

Although they may be the results of the exercise of good leadership, the “variables” of stakeholder value, company growth, and shareholder return are not personal traits of leadership, nor are they traits of anything else. The technical competence that may be required for managers is not the same kind of competence that is required for leaders. The skill-sets required are as different as night is from day. Being assigned to a position of leadership does not make a person a leader.

Character is independent of results and not only has a strong part to play in leadership, character is destiny. Character does not necessarily insure continuous success nor freedom from error. It doesn't matter how it is tested, Character will out.

Deception As A Business Tool

Deception is about managing perceptions and it’s a two-way street. Like beauty, what constitutes deception “is in the eye of the beholder.” If I am to deceive you, I must have your help.

Deception is also about time, timing and a number of other factors, of which there are many combinations and permutations. All of these factors go toward affecting an organization’s tempo of operations, i.e., how long it takes the organization to complete a decision-making cycle. Logically, the steps in a decision cycle are: you observe, you evaluate what you have observed, you reach conclusions based on your evaluation and you decide what action to take based on your conclusions. Then, of course, you act on your decision.

For example, say I attempt to deceive you. In this case, I plant information where I know you will be able to find it. It is my decision as to whether the information comprises all truth, partial truth or no truth. If I am skillful, I frame the information in an ambiguous form and make it appear that I have inadvertently revealed it or lost it. The more ambiguous I make it, the longer it will take you to categorize it. This is very important, for once I have planted the information, a clock starts ticking.

After that, it’s up to you, governed by your organization’s tempo of operations, to take whatever time you have and using whatever means you wish to use, to resolve the ambiguities (if you see them) and decide into which of those three categories you will place the information. You can make the wrong choice. If you do that, you have been deceived and will probably take inappropriate action.

But, what if you make the right choice? This is where time and timing become very important. If I know that my tempo of operations is much higher than yours (my decision-making cycle is shorter than yours), it might be safe for me to plant information that is all truth.

Because of the relative difference in operating tempos, by the time you have completed your decision cycle, I will have begun another of mine and moved on to something else. In essence, you will be reacting to a situation that no longer exists. Thus, you have once again been deceived and will probably take inappropriate action.

The bottom line: an organization should strive to maintain a very high tempo of operations compared to its competitors. If it can do this, truth will have a very short shelf life. A new truth will have emerged. Such a rapidly changing situation can cause the competitors to become confused about what the truth really is, degrading and possibly paralyzing their decision making process.