Are you a Manager or a Leader?

Leaders exist at every level of an organisation, whereas Managers are hierarchical pinnacles. By its nature, the role of a Manager is that of control, unless that manager is a Leader. There is nothing wrong with being a Manager as long as it is where you wish to be.

So which one am I (one might ask)? In order to better portray this, I'll use a real example, that I observed yesterday while shopping for clothes. I asked one of the 2 charming shop assistants why he seemed rather low-key. He told me this short story. 

He said that the other shop assistant who is his manager (Store Manager) hired him, some weeks ago, as he was recommended by her husband. He was doing very well from the outset, so the creative Store Manager moved against convention and decided to pool the Store Sales and effectively share her commission with him, while he ramped-up his sales. It created an amazing harmonious, effective, positive, pleasant and rewarding environment for both; a great place to work he added. That lasted about 3 weeks.

Then, the morning of my visit, the pair received a call from the Store Manager's supervisor who asked them to promptly stop that practise. "You are meant to be competing"........... 

The shop assistant is totally disincentivised and is now wondering if this organisation is aligned with his value systems or whether he will just be there and just collect the salary.

Hierarchically, the Supervisor was "enforcing" the organisational edict of how people participate in their internal commission scheme. The Store Manager was incentivising her staff.

The point is that as managers we often forget the purpose of the process, in this case the commission process. Obviously it is, to incentivise the team and individuals specifically, to achieve better organisational results. We seem to fail to realise that the best results are achieved through effective and happy teams rather than through dogma. As a manager this individual was using his position to enforce company policy. As a Leader, he failed, as this achieved the opposite outcome to the intent of the policy/process.

So the answer to the question "Am I a Leader or a Manager?", seems straight forward to me. Am I an enforcer that utilises my position to control outcomes, or am I unleashing that Leader quality within each individual in my team to achieve results that eclipse my industry competitors?

In our definition, Leaders are those that create Leaders and Leadership starts with one owning the responsibility of taking a Lead in their own life! Whether you know it or not, you are a Leader! Leaders exist in all walks of life. They are mothers, CEOs, volunteers, spiritualists, care-givers, receptionists, and the list goes on. However not all these role players are Leaders.

http://www.aldogrech.com

Who's Your Boss?

not relevant but interesting

As a leader, this is a key question to keep in mind.

It is my observation and opinion over the many years that I led businesses, that there are 2 types of businesses, those that focus on the customer and those that focus on the shareholder. Now many will argue that these are not mutually exclusive, and maybe so. However. I believe that in most cases that I have observed, this is a valid statement.i believe that there is only one Organisation that is effective and meets the test of time and that is the Organisation that focuses on the customer. I also happen to believe that the Organisation that focuses primarily on its customer is better serving its shareholders.

The focus on shareholders is usually a short-term view of an Organisation. It is usually a 3 monthly cycle of achieving certain results. Where, if results are not met, the Organisation is severely punished. In order to meet these short term results, so called leaders resort to anything including getting rid of core staff (often not the ones that are obviously bringing the results, but are the hidden jewels, alas), selling core assets and diverting the Organisation away from its true vision, merely to keep investors happy. I use the word merely quite purposefully. As I believe the shareholders are best served if these decisions are not made, if they want long-term "success".

I am not saying that recalcitrant employees should not be addressed appropriately. However, getting rid of employees, merely for short-term results achievement, is tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bath water! This is a different issue and the subject of a separate article.

Shareholders are best served if the Organisation stays focused on its customers; it's vision, even as times get tough and as shareholders want blood. Of course, one needs to stay relevant and the business of a leader is in fact to continually measure the Organisational one page business plan against market ensuring its validity. However, once validated and/or trimmed, a true leader stays focused on the customer and not the short-term blood thirst of the shareholders. Shareholders operate out of fear and a true leader knows this, and is able to stay on course while managing shareholders expectations.

However, back to the original hypothesis. As a leader there is a key choice to make; the customer, or the shareholder. And this is not about politics and rhetoric. It is about conviction.

Practically, what does this mean?

The customer-centric leader understands that the Organisational best asset is the employee. They do everything to ensure that everybody is on board and on purpose. They ensure that training is provided for all to stay on purpose and eliminates those that refuse to adopt the vision and are not on purpose. These are not necessarily recalcitrant employees. However, sometimes, there are valid differences of opinion and there is no place for an employee with opposing views of objectives. This is like letting a cancer grow. An on-purpose Organisation is unstoppable, profitable and has longevity built-in; it can whitstand down-times and maximize profits in good times, better serving its loyal shareholders.

I would not call CEOs and Managers of shareholder-centric organizations leaders. They might be brilliant in delivering great short-term dividends. However, the organizations they build are not sustainable long-term, have tragic customer satisfaction levels and have limited longevity. They are the heroes of investors but create organizations with low morale high staff turn-over and as a result unsustainable. In the long-term, this is bad news for loyal investors and create cronic down-turns as they do almost anything (as shown in the GFC) to ensure short-term results. They might be Managers, CEOs, great analysers, politicians; often charismatic, but not Leaders.

Unfortunately, these individuals are the yardstick for our youth and this is a sad indictment for our civilization that has placed money as a god above all gods.

Obviously, investors are by nature transient and they pick and choose, dropping perceived hot potatoes for the new short term money making opportunity. This is sometimes good for the investors hip-pocket, but always bad for business.

Apple is a great example of my views. Its share-value has been savaged even as it enjoys, unparalleled customer satisfaction, unparalleled profits, unparalleled growth of liquid assets unparalleled equity for a company of its size and has effectively created 5 new global product categories; simply because it has not met shareholder expectations! Absurd...

As a Leader, it is your choice. Choose wisely as true deep-in-the-heart conviction, alignment and happiness is worth much more than the short-term financial reward. And be clear that choosing the customer over the shareholder is a sure guarantee of investor return, almost and oxymoron!

CxO has proven alternative methodologies to turn your Organisation into a sustainable, long term, great entity. http://www.CxOconsulting.com.au. Aldo Grech is the managing Partner and Leader of CxO.

True Leaders Redefine Success

As a reader of my musings, you would know my definition of Leadership. Please refer to the bottom of this page to refresh yourself.

Consciously or subconsciously, most people will refer to success in terms of money, winning or corporate hierarchical achievement. In any case, it refers to making more or being more in reference to others.

I believe, this emanates from a human condition of less-than, of inadequacy, fear and shame that puts us on a never ending path of futility, chasing that which will not bring us true happiness. True success, I believe is being the best of who we can be in those areas of our passions and essence, when we are in our element. Somebody defined success as "wanting what I already have!"

When we use externals as measures for success, all we are doing is punishing ourselves be establishing success criteria that refer us to third-parties, a formula for unhappiness. If the measure of success is money, then if we do not have enough, we have failed, and how much is enough anyway. If the next promotion is the measure of our success, then, if a third party chooses not to promote us, we are placing the measure of success in the hands of another. If we define success as winning a race, then there are endless permutations that will give us, or not, the result we expect, and so, again, we place our success in the hands of others or third party conditions.

Now, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with money, winning or corporate achievement. However, if we link success (and happiness) to these outcomes, then we are handicapping ourselves.

Leadership comes from deep within us. It is the externalising of that gift that we were born to be. It is that childlike energy that does not fear or even understand the concept of being shamed or being ridiculed. It is based on self-respect and the respect of the opinion of others, and does not conclude that the opinion of others, if different to ours, makes us wrong... just different. Diversification is the essence and colorfulness of humankind.

It is also that confidence that allows us to accept 3rd party opinions of us and is able to dispassionately take from it that which serves us and discount the rest.

A true leader, motivates themselves and others by expecting the best of themselves and others and creates environments where mistakes are a positive element of progress. They do not pejoratively compare and understand that the richness of the differences are what makes their environment an enjoyable success.

In our definition, Leaders are those that create Leaders and Leadership starts with one owning the responsibility of taking a Lead in their own life! Whether you know it or not, you are a Leader! Leaders exist in all walks of life. They are mothers, CEOs, volunteers, spiritualists, care-givers, receptionists, and the list goes on. However not all these role players are Leaders.

http://www.aldogrech.com

Celebrate Mistakes

Leader definition according to Dictionary.com - a person or thing that leads; a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.

Leader definition according to Oxford Dictionary - the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country; the person or team that is winning a sporting competition at a particular time; an organization or company that is the most advanced or successful in a particular area.

Today we redefine Leadership. Leadership is not exclusively related to the work environment. Leadership is about being in our element, operating from our essence. I have real life examples to make the point in a work environment that equally applies to all walks of life. The example is a real organisation in decline and in real trouble. In administration and having lost six hundred thousand dollars. I will later show you how Leadership utilising this new definition, has impacted this organisation.

We are all born natural leaders. But leadership is often educated out of us in our early days to conform to normality, through fear of mistakes.

We celebrate mistakes!

In this organisation the Staff to choose their CEO. I am that CEO. I, in turn nominated the customer as our CEO and delegated myself as his assistant. We instituted weekly meetings where the team was encouraged to bring their mistake to the table. If people did not, we assumed that they were not trying hard enough. Management is about control and as a result driven by fear of failure. Without risk, there is no growth and risk brings fear of mistakes. It is our responsibility as leaders to remove fear of mistakes as that's where the gold lies. Be-it at home or at the workplace, where there is fear of making mistakes, growth and creativity are greatly hampered. As a child, every fall was a step closer to our first step. The light bulb might never have been invented if it wasn't for thousands of mistakes.

"You mean I can do what I want, when I work for your company." Yes, this is your company. You turn-up when you want to and approach your role in the way that feels best for you. If the customer is satisfied, then so are we! "Really??? But when I expressed myself freely as a young child, I was told to grow-up and stop being silly!!!"

Such is the rigorous and pervasive normalisation training from our early days in in our culture generally, that fear, whilst undesirable, feels comfortable (the comfort of the known) where-as true freedom of expression is difficult and challenging. Happiness at home and at work relates more to the freedom of self-expression than it relates to how much we earn. Fear marginalises us. It makes us feel like frauds among peers. Operating from our essence, without fear of failure makes us Leaders. Leaders are creative and motivate others to operate from their core and their essence. They remove barriers of fear and shame. They motivate by respecting the individual for their individuality rather than rail-roading them into conformity of standards, hierarchy, roles and KPIs.

Mums can be Leaders. Artists can be leaders. Receptionists can be Leaders. Leaders are not hierarchically or financially motivated. Managers are! Yet, in my experience, the hardest thing is for people to trust that they are allowed to make mistakes and that they are allowed to "be themselves"! That's the real test. I was fortunate to work closely with Stan Shih (founder of Acer Computer). He believed that mistakes are the cost of education and losses applied to our training budget. Stan's company became the 3rd largest global PC manufacturer. When we set-out to be the best of who we are, doing what we believe not for financial or hierarchical advancement, as Steve Jobs showed, we end-up changing the world and receiving great financial reward.

So, operating from our Essence, is the best way to look after the board and the shareholders. We, met our customers and asked them many questions about us. We turned rhetoric and clichés into actions, marketed less, established customer-centric internal vision, eliminate non-profitable products, allowed the organisation to self realign behind the new vision, did not replace sales staff that left, removed the Sales Department, re-distributed the amount traditionally allocated to sales commissions into incentives for all. Most suppliers abandoned us. This had a significant impact on our Vision and had to choose a new, more profitable and sustainable direction. Gave 40% of company to staff and shared it equally between us.

We got the team to have more fun, flexible working hours, Foosball at office, Go carting & Karaoke nights, hours/days off without impacting leave entitlements, worked smarter not harder, Eliminate manual processes, open space environment and more. 14 staff spend less time at work, produced more than 29 did, revenues continued to slide! Profitability went up SIGNIFICANTLY, finishing 2011/12 with six hundred thousand dollar profit (a one point two million dollar turn-around) and on track to a record two point six million in 2012/13.

A new Definition

We need a new definition of humanity. One that is not based on historic structure that defines us by colour, sex, creed, geography, financial wealth, age and stature.

We are born naturally fluid with an ability to morph ourselves to an environment. Unfortunately the "normal" environment we have created is not natural at all and forces us onto a train track called age with milestones of what is expected as achievement at certain ages. So by age x we are meant to have started spelling and by age y we are meant to have started mathematical computations, at age z we get married, and so on.... Those that do not comply, are somehow cast aside as lesser human beings as defined by academic "progress" or cultural limitations. Those that do are mostly on a treadmill of further expectations of "success" as defined by a third party and are white-knuckling it through in case they fall off this path into the abyss of "non-peak performance". And this supposedly is progress!

Just writing that previous paragraph has made me feel stressed. Let alone living it!

This linear path of progression in our lives, is designed around the needs for banks to make money from interest and for governments to continue re-inventing new taxes that they mostly squander as proven in the last Global Financial Crises.

So, now that obviously money has no value as governments in cahoots with the reserve banks continue to print money to hand-over to those that quickly redirect it to their bank accounts and where in America, 20 individuals are worth more than half the population there, has the time come for the majority to redefine what human life is all about and what defines humanity?