When high ranking officials seek to find out the “truth on the ground” they often discover the task much more difficult than expected.  It is usually not because the front-line personnel don’t know what is going on, but rather, few are willing to risk speaking candidly if they know the information will be viewed negatively by leadership.

This is unfortunate as it leaves leaders with a false sense of security.  “…but they said everything’s going great.”  It is something which goes on in many organizations, but the military rank system seems to exacerbate the issue.

There is an unnatural aura around the shiny pieces of medal on people’s shoulders that seem to act as a force-shield, blocking out reality and striking fear in subordinates.  Obviously not the intended effect (at least not most of the time), but one that exists nonetheless.

Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist recently wrote an article in the Financial Times admonishing us to “Listen to the Bearers of Bad News.”  Here’s a snippet:

One of Friedrich Hayek’s obvious-once-pointed-out observations is that society is full of local knowledge, often of a subtle nature and only fleetingly exploitable.  That is one reason why decentralised market processes tend to work well.  When a hierarchy has to exist, Hayek’s insight is the reason why bosses should want to receive truthful assessments of what is going on the shop floor (they don’t) and subordinates should be happy to provide them (they aren’t).

What makes matters worse for any organisation is that the same dynamic is taking place at every level.  Each middle manager is a fresh obstacle to the flow of truth up a hierarchy of wastebaskets.  Sensible managers try to let information flow freely, but many are happy to reinforce the barricades for their own peace of mind.

The results of barriers to communication can be catastrophic.  H.R. McMaster’s influential study of decision-making during the Vietnam war, Dereliction of Duty, is packed with examples.  The joint chiefs of staff were warned by their chairman, Maxwell Taylor, that Lyndon Johnson did not like “split advice”. Johnson’s defence secretary, Robert McNamara, argued that government would be ineffective if department chiefs were to “express disagreement” with the president.  Not disobey, but “express disagreement”.  Johnson trusted McNamara implicitly and relied too heavily on the advice of a man he praised as a “can-do fellow”.   Isolating himself from dissent, the president made a series of disastrous decisions.

The new television series, Undercover Boss, has made a name for itself by finding a creative way around this barrier to truth.  CEO’s of major corporations “dress-down” as low-level employees in their own companies to uncover the truths that would otherwise be relegated to talks around the water-cooler.

I posed the question on Twitter the other day,

“wondering what would happen if Generals pulled an ‘undercover boss’ and dressed up as civilian contractors working with the military?”

I think they might be surprised how different their military looks.

Popularity: 1% [?]

In a recent Washington Independent article, Spencer Ackerman asked the all-important, but seldom asked question, “Why Should Defense Spending Be Sacrosanct?”

It’s not popular to ask this question, especially if you’re a congressman because in doing so you’re bound to be labeled as not supportive of the troops.  However, the present course of the DOD is completely unsustainable. And in our current economic state ($12 trillion in debt and counting) I, like Ackerman and others, find it odd that there has been no serious talk of freezing the gargantuan DoD budget. In 2008, the US military spent more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined (see here).

The spending problems come from personnel costs on one side — full retirement benefits for members who serve 20 years of active duty (most retire in their 40’s and now live well into their 80’s and beyond, a.k.a. 40 years of retirement pay), rising healthcare costs, salaries, housing pay, etc.  Equipment costs on the other — planes, bullets, tanks, UAV’s and an aging fleet of …well, almost every weapon system you can think of.  Just to send one combat troop to Afghanistan costs the taxpayer $1 million a year.

Almost everyone close to the organization knows we’re plowing ahead like a drunk driver headed for the cliff, but no one seems up to the task of fixing it.  Worse yet, much of the leadership seems bent on simply increasing spending rather than fixing a broken system.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is making a noble effort, but the military-industrial complex is a three-headed monster, devouring every plan formed against it through strategic lobbying, creative bookkeeping and a view of the world based more on fantasy than reality.

Ackerman cites an October assessment from the CSBA’s Todd Harrison who compares the DoD to GM, explaining (emphasis mine),

Another similarity between the two is that both organizations are in a period of disruptive change in the competitive environment. In GM’s case, its market share rapidly eroded as gas prices climbed higher, the economy slowed, and consumers turned to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. GM found itself building a fleet of SUVs and trucks that consumers did not want and could not afford. Similarly, DoD now finds itself saddled with a number of weapon programs whose capabilities are ill-suited for the types of conflict the military currently faces and whose costs have risen beyond what the Department can afford. Many of the new weapons being funded today are optimized for middle-of-the- spectrum conflicts—that is, conventional, military-on-military conflicts such as Operation Desert Storm in 1991. But adversaries are well aware of the United States’ overwhelming advantage in the middle and are instead moving to either end of the spectrum: irregular warfare on one end and high-end, asymmetric warfare on the other. The challenge for DoD, as it was for GM, is that the competition is adapting faster than it can keep up.

The last sentence is key, “…the competition is adapting faster than it can keep up.” Much of it has to do with the huge, inflexible, bureaucratic organizational structure of the DoD as compared the nimble, decentralized, open-source structure embodied by al-Qaeda and affiliate organizations. One bans twitter, facebook and gmail while the other uses the internet train to organize its cells all over the world.

Changing the DOD’s organizational structure is one thing, putting a freeze on the defense budget is another and one that may be a bit more realistic. However, none of this is bound to change anytime soon if we insist on keeping our country in a state of perpetual war.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. – James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Popularity: 3% [?]

Management brainiac Tom Peters gives us his bare bones guide to success:

“So here are ‘the real basics’—in five words. Achieve Excellence at these five things and the world (of human organizations) will pretty much be your oyster. ”

1. Read. (Outstudy ‘em.)

2. Write. (Clear, concise, powerful.)

3. Talk. (Presentation mastery. Study. Practice-practice-practice. Storytelling, mastery of.)

4. Listen. (Study. Practice-practice-practice. Understand enormous power thereof.)

5. Appreciate. (Engaged. Thoughtful. Compassionate. Appreciative always, enormous power thereof.)

————————

The brilliant military theorist and father of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), William Lind, recently posted the last of his 326-part series entitled, “On War.” I always listen to what he has to say because so much of what he has predicted has come to pass. Here are some of his final thoughts on war, the US military and the future.

“In particular, the theory’s definition of Fourth Generation war has proven prophetic. Since 1989, the world has witnessed a progressive weakening of the state and rise of alternative, non-state primary loyalties, for which a growing number of men are willing to fight. That is the heart of my definition of Fourth Generation war. As Martin van Creveld says, what changes is not how war is fought, but who fights and what they fight for.”

“The second point I would close with is that the U.S. military doesn’t get it. Some European militaries do get it. Many Fourth Generation entities (not all) not only get it, they are writing the book. But the U.S. military is largely an intellectual void. Its two implied (and related) theories, that wars are decided by comparative levels of technology and by who can put the most firepower on targets, have both been proven false. Were they true, we would have won the Iraq and Afghan wars quickly. In fact, the Pentagon was so blinded by its false theories it thought we had won them quickly. Sorry, guys.

While many junior and field grade officers in the U. S. military have found value in the Four Generations framework (which says that American armed forces are not one, but two generations behind), the brass studiously ignores it. ‘Not invented here’ is part of the problem, but the larger part is that our major headquarters think little if at all about war. What they think about is money. 4GW does little to justify bigger budgets. On the contrary, it suggests that most ‘big ticket’ weapons programs are irrelevant to where war is going. That is not what the brass, or the defense companies they plan to work for after retirement, want to hear.

What might change that picture? Nothing will change in DOD until the money simply isn’t there anymore. The news, which is simultaneously good and bad, is that the money soon won’t be there. Like every previous imperial power, we are bankrupting ourselves. A trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there, and soon it adds up to real money. The twin financing mechanisms of piling up debt and debasing the currency can only go on so long. We can already see the night at the end of the tunnel.”

Popularity: 4% [?]

Several month ago I signed up for a free management tip of the day e-mail from Harvard Business Publishing. Many have been worthwhile, but I wanted to share today’s with you. Quoting John Baldoni, author of “Lead by Example,” and other books on leadership the post states:

Effective leaders need to be mindful not only of their accomplishments, but of their character as well. Humility is a key aspect of character. Here are three ways to step out of the limelight and let others shine:

1. Temper authority. Don’t use authority just because you have it. Encourage your people to make decisions, set their own goals, and take responsibility as often as possible.
2. Promote others often. Grooming talent is good for your organization and for you as a leader. Promote people around you, giving them opportunities to match or even surpass your success.
3. Acknowledge the accomplishments of others. If things go well, give away the credit. If things go poorly, take the fall. This humble approach will ensure your team rallies behind you.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Editor’s Note: The following is a guest post by my friend Marc Marmino, defense analyst, coffee lover and resident of the beautiful Pacific Northwest.

Those of us fortunate enough to live near Seattle (if only for the coffee) have the opportunity to visit the original Starbucks in Pike Place Market. If you too live in Seattle, or are visiting sometime in the near future, I strongly recommend forgoing the opportunity to see the “original Starbucks” in the market. Instead, visit the nearby newly “de-branded” store caddy-corner to the market on 1st and Pike. It is a throwback to the original conception of Starbucks, and a concept that has a lot of merit in my eyes as to what the company should strive to return to.

Also, you may be disappointed after waiting in the long line and flustering amongst the impatient crowd at the “original Starbucks” only to learn that it was actually the 4th store built and operated by the company. Actually, you’d never learn that unless I told you, because its location simply lends to a feeling of originality. So Starbucks actually goes along with the white lie that it’s the company’s first storefront. It’s great for business as several thousands of visitors flock through the market daily after disembarking from their cruise ship in the Seattle Harbor.

Speaking of Starbucks, what’s going on with that company nowadays? Last I’d heard: Howard Schultz had returned to the company as CEO after the stock price was greatly diminished, stores were closing all over the globe, and employees were laid off in droves. It seems that regardless of these facts, I still loyally buy almost 3 cups of the best Joe on the planet per week from the store. So where are they now in the face of their recent challenges? I did some research to find out…

As a quick recap of the company’s woes: The company was a part of the massive boom in the coffee industry following the turn of the century when the US retail coffee market recorded a growth of 157% in value terms between 2000 ($3,258 million) and 2005 ($8,372 million). As a leading coffee retailer during this lucrative period for the industry, Starbucks accumulated a large amount capital at a rapid pace. Accordingly, the company began to offer outstanding salaries and benefits to their employees while opening new stores at a feverish-pace. Starbucks was expanding globally and the company’s stock price rose quickly up until FY2007. At that point in time, Starbucks ran into a series of difficult circumstances that ultimately led its financial performance into a downward spiral.

Starbucks Corporation faced several challenges in recent years including:

• intense competition
• low employee productivity
• changing consumer habits from the global economic downturn.

As a result of these challenges, “the company’s profit margin decreased nearly $500 million (an approximate 50% decline) during FY2008 in comparison to FY2007”.

Accompanying this fiscal crunch was the closing of many stores and the termination of thousands of jobs within the organization. Additionally, the anticipated growth of the company came to an abrupt halt in the face of diminished capital. The retained employees received massive cuts to their pensions and a seemingly hollow promise from the revived CEO Howard Schultz that the company would return to its once prominent spot atop the food and beverage industry. While it is apparent that recent results suggest that he is on the right track…some observers remain skeptical.

What has the company done to correct itself?

The coffee giant has taken several steps to address their current problems. First and foremost, it underwent a major restructuring effort that included downsizing the overall size of the company. To improve their balance sheet, Starbucks executives decided to cutout several liabilities in the form closing nearly 700 stores, both existing and under construction. In addition, the company made the difficult decision to lay off several thousand employees in the midst of a recession. The company has also attempted to shed their monopolistic-faux image by undergoing a “de-branding”.

The brand itself began as a local-niche-firm, one that was incredibly inviting and sparked the interest of millions of customers. Inevitably the firm grew quickly and eventually became a global brand that has lost its once niche appeal. According to one coffee advertiser, the relatively rapid success of the company “led to issues of brand depersonalization”. Now, in an attempt to return to its wildly successful roots, the company is de-branding in an effort to regain a community personality and the image of the neighborhood coffee shop.

There is an incredible urgency for this company to return to profitability. Mainly, competitors both small and large threaten to take over the majority of the market share in coffee retail and production. According to Data Monitor, “Starbucks faces intense competition in coffee beverage segment from other specialty coffee shops, restaurants, and doughnut shops”. Namely, McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have increased their share of overall coffee sales worldwide.

In an effort to not miss out on the market of consumers thirsting for better quality coffee beans, grocery markets have adopted the practice of selling their company’s own higher-quality coffee-beans. In addition, coffee bean companies (i.e. Folgers) that have traditionally used lower-quality beans began offering a higher-quality bean choice to consumers. The urgency in this market shift deals with the risk associated with the recent economic downturn.

Consumers are now making more decisions based upon a cost-benefit analysis vice brand-name recognition. If an organization puts forth a product that is nearly equivalent to a traditionally higher-quality product for a lower price, the consumer is increasingly more inclined to choose the former product. In the case of Starbucks, competitors are doing just this, at a lower price. While the strong brand-name has seemingly protected Starbucks thus far, if they cannot fix their problems soon, many industry experts expect the company to fall further into irrelevancy in the eyes of the global consumer.

Motivation is one of the key elements towards positively changing the progress of the company. No one is more in tune with this concept than the resurrected Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Starbucks most recently dropped only 5% in year-on-year sales in the second quarter of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008 (beating analysts’ expectations).

Schultz sees hope in the progress made thus far, but is quick to not discount the work that lies ahead of the company and its employees. This sentiment was readily apparent in Schultz’s rhetoric when he recently stated that “There’s no victory lap going on at Starbucks here…We have a lot of work to do, one quarter [of improving sales] does not make a trend”. This cautious optimism that Schultz maintains is critical towards ensuring that the company does not become overly confident or complacent in its change effort.

If it fails to make the necessary changes, the coffee company will likely lose its majority stake in the marketplace to competitors, and ultimately lose money for its shareholders. A publicly-held company exists solely to make money for its shareholders, and a shrinking company fails to achieve its mission. Such an outcome would draw down levels of capital within the company from outside investors. Lower levels of capital equate to more job losses and store closings. In the worst case scenario, Starbucks would go bankrupt or even become obsolete. These reasons are indicative of why it is so important for Starbucks to make the necessary changes to ensure its viability for years to come.

In these times of financial uncertainty for so many companies, one thing is for certain…God they make great coffee…

Popularity: 4% [?]

Fear of failure is something many of us struggle with individually, but within an organization it can be magnified in a way that leaves everyone paralyzed as they attempt to go about their day-to-day work.  Not only a terribly inefficient way to do business, this state of fear stifles creativity and innovation, creating a very unhealthy setting for growth.  Being conservative is one thing, but when a fear of falling short leads to the refusal of members to push the envelope, organizations are destined for stagnation and eventual failure.

This conversation came up in my squadron at a recent training day.  The issue involved pilots and loadmasters trying to accomplish the mission with the constant fear of a Q3 (Air Force speak for a documented failure or breech of standards doled out by squadron leadership) hanging over each of their heads if they messed up.  A Q3 isn’t necessarily a career-ender, but it stays in your permanent record and can have negative consequences for future assignments or promotions.

Many pilots and loadmasters voiced a similar complaint that went something like this, “Q3’s are handed out like candy in our organization even for small mistakes, no other community gives out Q3’s as much as ours.  Basically, we know that if we mess up in anyway, we’re going to get hammered, no matter what.”

The squadron leadership countered that they held us to a higher standard than other organizations and accepted less margin of error.  Additionally, they were concerned that by easing up or taking Q3’s off the table that we would take advantage and become lazy or disregard procedures.

The debate went on for over an hour and centered around one question:

How does an organization cultivate healthy risk-taking without losing control?

Obviously organizations can’t take the Q3 (fill in your own organization’s hammer equivalent) away completely, as there are times when people do something very stupid or dangerous and must be held accountable.  There must be a negative incentive for recklessness and negligence or it will slowly become acceptable to take unreasonable levels of risk.

On the other hand, when Q3’s are the go-to punishment for even the most minor mistakes it causes every pilot and loadmaster to second-guess every move they make, call home for every decision and seek cover from leadership before ever even thinking about stepping out on the limb.  It’s like swatting a fly with a hammer. Hammers aren’t very precise and should only be used as a last resort, not the go-to instrument of punishment when things go wrong.

Innovation requires risk and inherent in risk is the occasional mistake. In an environment where every mistake is severely punished, the career field stagnates, no new techniques or methods are developed and leaders turn into cowards rather than heroes.

This isn’t the first time an organization has wrestled with this type of dilemma.  Every day leaders must make decisions on how to react to missteps and poor decisions made by their employees.  Come off too weak and the fear is that people will walk all over you.  Be too harsh and people will either begrudgingly toe the line or simply walk away – neither helpful to the organization.

The military presents two additional dilemmas:

- You don’t have the option of quitting (unless you’ve fulfilled your obligation) so the default mode when faced with an environment of heavy-handed punishments is to be ultra-conservative and never go beyond the minimum required for fear of failure.  The attitude becomes one of survival rather than professionalism.

- Unlike some organizations where the cost of failure can be measured in dollars, ours has the potential to be measured in lives.  Every time we turn on the jet we hold people’s lives in our hands, not to mention a $200 million piece of equipment.  Risk must be taken, but at some point it becomes criminal.

Needless to say, these characteristics present a very fine line for military leadership.  How does one encourage troops to push the boundaries of their career field, develop new techniques, improve processes and take risk, but at the same time keep people from getting killed?

A very similar predicament can be found in the medical profession.  As a surgeon, how does one develop their skills or new techniques when the consequences for making a mistake often mean a dead body on the table?  Cadavers are great, but can only tell you so much.  Sooner or later a life has to be put on the line to advance the medical profession.  How does a Chief of Surgery manage his people in a way that encourages this advancement, but avoids taking on an unacceptable amount of risk?

After discussing these things and doing some thinking of my own, here are a few solutions I have come up with.  The following are a few ways that organizations involved in life and death missions can encourage innovation and risk-taking without being negligent:

1)  Accept the Little Mistakes – If you are going to create a system of risk-taking and innovation, you have to accept that mistakes will be made.  In his book “Product Innovation Strategy Pure and Simple,” Michel Robert explains that not all mistakes are equal, nor should they be treated as such.

When I worked at Johnson & Johnson in the early 1960’s, a motto permeated the organization: ‘If you’re not making mistakes, you’re not making decisions.’…that is how J&J encourages risk taking.  3M does it in a similar fashion.  ‘Make a lot of little mistakes, but try to avoid big ones,’ is 3M’s way of doing the same thing…Innovative thinking requires risk taking.  Prudent and calculated risk taking, but nevertheless, risk taking.

2)  Practice Harder, Much Harder Than You Play – In our profession we have multi-million dollar simulators whose sole purpose is to replicate our actual flight experience as close as possible.  On top of this we have local training missions in the actual jet, but minus passengers or valuable cargo.  These are the best places to push the envelope, make mistakes and try new techniques.  Unfortunately they are often treated like another box to fill, rather than an opportunity to push the limits.

While organizations may not have actual simulators most have some sort of training mechanism available to hone the skills of its members.  Any leader seeking to create an innovative environment must establish the precedent that training time means pushing oneself beyond one’s limits.

Training is the time for experimentation, mistakes and failure…not just another routine mission.

3)  Celebrate the Risk-Takers - One of the quickest ways to decipher the values of a company is to observe the people they celebrate.  If the qualifications of people receiving quarterly and yearly awards are measured only by the absence of mess-ups, it sends a strong message that sticking one’s neck out on the line and trying something new is not valued or encouraged.  Better to toe the line and hope you’ll be recognized someday for showing up to work on time in the right uniform.

Instead, an organization trying to encourage risk taking should be quick to recognize and celebrate those who are doing just that, taking risks!  Who cares if they’ve failed a few times along the way.  Mistakes made in the attempt of pushing boundaries and testing new ideas (very different than mistakes made by incompetence or negligence) are prime indicators that innovation is occurring, or as J&J was quoted above, “…decisions are being made.”

Hold these people up as an example to the rest of the organization and people will soon realize that risk is something to embrace rather than shun.

4) Trust Your Employees – It is imperative that organizational leadership trust their personnel.  If you don’t trust the people working for you, replace them with people you do.  This does not mean that it is blind.  Like anything in life, trust is something that is earned over time, but some leaders never make it to that point, always choosing to assume the worst, rather than the best.  This is a problem.

Part of this trust involves a belief that everyone is working for the betterment of the organization as a whole.  As a leader it’s your job to give those working for you the benefit of the doubt when mistakes are made.  If the same mistakes happen repeatedly, then address them as such, but the standard posture must always be trust.

At the end of the day every organization must understand that the behavior of each of their members is a direct result of the system they have in place (hat tip to USAFA’s Mgt 303).  Leaders can chant risk-taking mantras all day to their employees, but if they punish the first member that falls short in his or her endeavors members will read their call for change for what it really is, lip-service.

In order to cultivate an innovative environment, leaders may have to initially bite their tongue at mistakes they may have punished in the past, whether they like it or not.  Until members feel confident that the default mode in their organization is for leaders to back up their employees rather than punish them nothing will change and risk-takers will be replaced by 9-5 sheep.

Popularity: 2% [?]

**Special thanks to entrepreneur/yoga-teacher/blogger extraordinaire Jonathan Fields for his valuable input.

“I did a normal, tactical departure out of the airport and shortly after takeoff, I saw a bright orange flash out of the right window, followed by an explosion and the entire plane shuddered,” said Capt Steve Radtke, a co-pilot on a C-5 mission taking off out of Baghdad International Airport in 2004.  The crew performed an emergency engine shutdown, declared the emergency and returned for a safe landing shortly after the incident.

“We are trained for the worst-case scenario. It was great to see how everything we train to do actually works. I was impressed by how smoothly everything went,” Capt Radtke said.

Every year the U.S. Air Force spends hundreds of millions of dollars sending young officers through 13 months of incredibly intense flight training called Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).  The basis of the course is to take a young person with little to no flying experience and turn them into a professional aviator, responsible for the defense of the country and the expensive aircraft they fly.  Ask most familiar with aviation and they will tell you, UPT does it’s job quite well.

One of the most stressful parts of the program is an exercise in problem solving called, “Stand Up.”  Students stand at attention in front of the entire class and flight of instructors and are given a mock emergency scenario, such as an engine fire.  They are then required to go through the proper steps in pain-staking detail of how they would solve the emergency and bring it to a logical conclusion (this could mean landing or ejecting from the aircraft depending on the plane).

At any point of the exercise if the student is found to be doing something unsafe or illogical he is told to “Sit down!”  This is the equivalent of failing.  If a student is doing well, however, he is told to “Take a seat.”  While it seems very similar, these words actually mean the student has passed the stand-up scenario.

In order to pass stand-up, there are some common procedures that all students must recite to start with word for word and then follow closely throughout the exercise:

1) Maintain aircraft control

2) Analyze the situation and take the proper action

3) Land as soon as conditions permit

It is these procedures that Capt Radtke of the C-5 crew, as well as thousands of other pilots who have faced emergencies of their own, follow in order to manage a highly complex and stressful situation without becoming overwhelmed and folding or making a fatal mistake.  While these steps are given to pilots as a guide they can be very helpful to anyone facing a tough problem when the stakes are high.

A quick look at how each of these steps helps in coming to the best solution:

1) Maintain Aircraft Control

It doesn’t matter how good you are at analyzing the situation if you crash into the ground in the process.  Maintaining aircraft control reminds a pilot that the #1 priority is keeping the aircraft in the air and as stable as possible.  If this step is forgotten the consequences are often fatal and airplanes crash when the emergency may have been solved quite easily.  Ex. a airline crew crashes their jet while fixated on a burnt out gear light in the cockpit.

This principle applies in almost any problem solving situation from saving someone’s life in the ER to keeping a start-up business alive.  Successful entrepreneur Jonathan Fields explains,

“Let’s say a single client accounts for a significant chunk of your revenue and they unexpectedly walk, leaving you with a gaping revenue hole.  You’ve got to reassure everyone inside and outside that this event has been a blow, but you are still completely operational and able to serve everyone’s needs with ease. And, you may need to immediately access bridge funds to maintain operations short term.”

2) Analyze the situation and take the proper action

Analysis is the process of organizing data using the tools available to produce usable information that you can act upon.  In an airplane there are hundreds of instruments, gauges and monitors all designed to give a pilot an accurate picture of the status and health of the plane (like the engine and fuel gauges in your car x 100).  Even with all these great tools there are still many times that the exact cause of the problem is hard to come by.

In business the analysis phase may mean a trip down accounting lane, looking at the debits, credits, inventory, etc.  In the ER this analysis comes through lab tests, x-rays or questioning the patient directly.  While some fields may have more precise instruments than others there is always an opportunity to analyze and get a better picture of what is actually happening.

The second part of this is taking the proper action.  As a pilot, you have a checklist available for nearly every conceivable emergency, from an engine overheat to a cabin pressurization problem.  If only every area of life were this simple.  It could be that at the end you must simply use every resource available and make a tough call whether it ends up being the right one or not.  In regards to leading a business, Fields explains you must, “…respond to the immediate threat to the stability of your business and take whatever actions are needed to maintain both operations and confidence.”

3) Land as soon as conditions permit

This is the final step of any aviation emergency.  If you can get the plane on the ground safely, then you have been successful.  Landing should always be in the back of any pilot’s mind during an emergency. Again, it’s not much good to analyze the situation perfectly and take the proper action if you overfly the last suitable airfield and run out of gas before you can get the plane on the ground.

Sometimes constantly thinking about landing can keep a pilot from over analyzing or wasting too much time going through the process.  If there is an opportunity to land safely or reach the end goal then it must be taken.

In other types of organizations this may simply mean bringing the problem to it’s conclusion then taking the proper steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again.  Landing is the conclusion and the end goal of any problem.  Landing means you put yourself in a position to fly another day.

In the end, there are some obvious differences between the cockpit of a jet and an emergency room or board room.  As Fields shares, “…with business, the process stretches out over a significantly longer period of time and you’ve got a vastly larger ‘psychology and perception management’ challenge to deal with in your action taking element.“  In a large airplane like the C-5 or C-17 you may have a few crew members at most to convince of your plan in the heat of battle.  Leading a business, however, puts you in a position where you may need to convince dozens, maybe even hundreds of employees of your plan of action.

Regardless, the problem solving process used by Air Force pilots is very valuable and can be used as a great starting point for anyone needing some guidance in a moment of crisis whether it be getting shot at in Baghdad or losing your company’s largest client.

If you liked this article why not subscribe via RSS or e-mail so that you don’t miss out. Also, consider bookmarking this to delicious or Stumble. I’d appreciate it!

Popularity: 3% [?]

For the past couple weeks I have been participating in the Air Force’s survival and resistance training course at Fairchild AFB in Spokane, WA, hence my lack of blog posts or communication as of late.  Driving home last Friday night I pulled onto my street and saw excited kids and families all shooting off fireworks together, a real Norman Rockwell scene.  And as I rounded the corner to our new house…I saw my wife and daughter.

It is hard to describe all the different emotions that ran through me as I pulled into our driveway.  A huge feeling of relief, joy, thankfulness and general relaxation washed over me like a wave.  It dawned on me as this was happening that EVERYONE NEEDS A HOME.

Now, I realize that not everyone is blessed to have grown up in a home environment or currently live in one that inspires the types of feelings I mentioned above.  To some the idea of home may actually be more akin to a nightmare than a place where you can hang your hat and fall into the love of your family.  Nevertheless, the need for a home is inside all of us.

Many have called this The Cheers Principle.  The lyrics to the show’s theme song reveal much about human nature and our desire for authentic community.

Sometimes you want to go
Where everybody knows your name,
And they’re always glad you came;
You want to be where you can see,
Our troubles are all the same;
You want to be where everybody knows your name.

Understanding this principle can have dramatic effects on the way we lead and see the world around us.  In short, organizations that can make their employees and customers feel at home achieve the greatest success.

Creating a place where someone feels at home requires:

1. Trust – an organization lacking the trust of its employees and/or customers is much like a machine without oil, it will continue to operate, but each movement requires more work than the one before…and in the end it will self-destruct.  Trust is the greatest of social lubricants, allowing us to focus on the outcome more than grinding through the process.
2. Joy – do people smile in your organization?  Do they laugh?  Is it FUN?  One of the quickest ways to judge whether or not your organization is inspiring joy is to observe how often you hear side-splitting laughter.  Joy is a healthy part of every family environment.
3. Consistency – one thing about family is you always know what to expect.  Sure there are surprises every now and then, but in the end it’s a lot like Thanksgiving.  Uncle Joe will make an awkward toast, Cousin Cindy will make the same candied yams she has for the past 15 years and someone will be in the corner recliner snoring before the dessert has even been passed out.  We love it because it’s uniquely ours and it’s consistent.
4. Love – simple, not easy.  Love is living for someone else’s good.  Without love there is no home.  Without love an organization is simply going through the motions and has no chance of inspiring passion, courage, or dedication.

Us twentysomethings love community and we recognize and appreciate the organizations that know how to create a home.  Think of your favorite restaurant, coffee shop, or retail store.  Chances are you feel at home in each of them.  Do the employees know your name?  Are they always glad you came?

Just look at Google, they’ve taken this idea of creating a home seriously.  Check out the Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google taken straight from their website and notice how many times you see the traits of a home I mentioned above:

1. Lend a helping hand. With millions of visitors every month, Google has become an essential part of everyday life – like a good friend – connecting people with the information they need to live great lives.
2. Life is beautiful. Being a part of something that matters and working on products in which you can believe is remarkably fulfilling.
3. Appreciation is the best motivation, so we’ve created a fun and inspiring workspace you’ll be glad to be a part of, including on-site doctor and dentist; massage and yoga; professional development opportunities; on-site day care; shoreline running trails; and plenty of snacks to get you through the day.
4. Work and play are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to code and pass the puck at the same time.
5. We love our employees, and we want them to know it. Google offers a variety of benefits, including a choice of medical programs, company-matched 401(k), stock options, maternity and paternity leave, and much more.
6. Innovation is our bloodline. Even the best technology can be improved. We see endless opportunity to create even more relevant, more useful, and faster products for our users. Google is the technology leader in organizing the world’s information.
7. Good company everywhere you look. Googlers range from former neurosurgeons, CEOs, and U.S. puzzle champions to alligator wrestlers and former-Marines. No matter what their backgrounds Googlers make for interesting cube mates.
8. Uniting the world, one user at a time. People in every country and every language use our products. As such we think, act, and work globally – just our little contribution to making the world a better place.
9. Boldly go where no one has gone before. There are hundreds of challenges yet to solve. Your creative ideas matter here and are worth exploring. You’ll have the opportunity to develop innovative new products that millions of people will find useful.
10. There is such a thing as a free lunch after all. In fact we have them every day: healthy, yummy, and made with love.

Whether you are a business, church, or government organization you can benefit from creating an environment that feels like home.  Humans are social creatures made to thrive in relationship with one another.  Home is THE BEST social environment if done well.  It is good to be home.

Popularity: 1% [?]

“Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself. When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.”— Jack Welch

The term “organic” is thrown around quite regularly these days, mainly in regard to food, but driving to dinner last night my wife and I discussed the term in relation to leadership. While organizations spend billions of dollars each year trying to hire the best leaders, there will always be some that fail and other that succeed. What separates the two types of leaders is their ability to become organic to their employees or subordinates. But what does organic mean in terms of leadership?

Organic Leadership – natural, motivating, compelling, effortless, inspiring hard work, creativity and innovation, fun

Non-Organic Leadership – unnatural, forced, coercive, minimal effort from subordinates, conformity, mechanical

An organic leader is one who we naturally want to follow, not because we’ll get fired if we don’t (though we may), but because something inside of us believes that they are adding value to our lives, businesses, and organizations.

Yet, while it may “feel” effortless, organic leadership is quite intentional. Organic leaders completely blow their non-organic counterparts away when it comes to one area: their ability to motivate and inspire people by meeting their higher needs.

A quick history. In 1943, Abraham Maslow published a landmark study on human motivation in relation to a hierarchy of needs. His study was unique because his subjects were successful, creative people, not the usual sick and disturbed crowd. He found that humans have needs which can be placed in two groups, basic and meta(growth), the higher depending on the fulfillment of the lower.

photo credit: savethedave

Basic or Deficiency Needs –

Physiological – food, water, sleep, sex, breathing

Safety – free from danger, security both physically and financially, clothing and shelter

Love/Belonging – social relationships, friendships, family, intimacy, need to be accepted

Esteem – respect from others, self-esteem, recognition, feeling valued and adequate

Meta or Growth Needs -

Cognitive – learn, explore, make sense of the universe, discover new things

Aesthetic – beautiful imagery, order, perspective

Self-Actualization – understanding yourself, knowing who you are and where you are going, realizing your full potential

Non-organic leaders meet only the first four basic needs, sometimes even less. Organic leaders meet these lower needs, but also have the ability to meet people’s higher needs: cognitive, aesthetic and self-actualization.

Think of the leaders that have inspired you. Chances are they excited you on a cognitive level by helping increase your knowledge and understanding. On an aesthetic level they were able to inspire you through imagery and unique perspective. And in all of this they allowed you to reach your full potential.

“Most innovative,” “Inspiring,” “Purpose-driven,” these are the words reserved for organic leaders, not for leaders who simply provided a safe work environment and steady paycheck, but for those who make it all seem so natural, those who understand the hierarchy of needs.

What have leaders done to inspire you? Do you agree with Maslow’s hierarchy? Why or why not? Let the discussion begin!

Popularity: 5% [?]

Everyone wants the ability to change the world around them, but some carry much more influence than others. These people possess authority. Authority is an interesting thing because unlike power, which can be gained independently, authority must be given by others. From Wikipedia, “…’power’ refers to the ability to achieve certain ends, ‘authority’ refers to the legitimacy, justification and right to exercise that power. For example, whilst a mob has the power to punish a criminal, such as through lynching, only the courts have the authority to order capital punishment.”

In academia, authority is often associated with someone or some work that is definitive, respected, and found to be the most knowledgeable or accurate in a certain field. Authority is often correlated to the number of times the person or work is cited in other academic publications. Technorati, a popular blog ranking site assigns each blog an “Authority” rank based on the number of other web sites linking to that specific blog. Again, authority is given by others.

Webster’s defines authority as, “power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior,” and also as “convincing force.”

How, then, does one gain authority? The following are three paths to gaining authority that apply regardless of career, position or geography:

Service – People will rarely allow you to have access into their life if you have not served them in some capacity. The most trusted professions in America happen to be the professions most associated with service–doctors, police officers, teachers, and military officers are among the highest ranking. It should come as no surprise that the most trusted professions are also rewarded with the most authority. The act of putting other people before yourself is widely preached and rarely practice, but the individuals, businesses and organizations that do this best reap the benefits.

Just think of the last time a business went the extra mile in serving you, what was your reaction? The most common reaction to service is greater trust. Howard Schultz has built Starbucks around the concept of serving his employees using measures such as stock options and benefits for employees working as little as 20 hours a week. As a result, he and the rest of the management team has gained authority in the lives of each Starbucks partner resulting in higher quality people working at Starbucks, low turnover rates, and widespread adoption of the companies values and culture. Starbucks is an excellent example of how service is a direct path to authority. The question is how much do you really have to offer others? All of us have something to give, but the more we can offer others the more authority we create.

Excellence – “Do you see those who are skilled in their work? They will serve before kings; they will not serve before officials of low rank,” – Proverbs 22:9 TNIV. One of the truly universal currencies at work today is excellence. Someone who is excellent at his profession will always be in high demand. Excellence is proof that authority is due, the evidence that one has knowledge, has mastered his skill or craft and can be trusted to execute. Excellence shuts the mouth of critics and gives a platform for one to exercise her authority.

It is possible to gain authority without excellence, but it will be nearly impossible to keep it. Who you know may many times get you in the door, but what you know will keep you there. Incompetence leads to distrust and a shrinking of one’s circle of influence. Excellence opens doors that would otherwise be shut. What makes our new globalized, flat world interesting is that through the rise of the internet, global communications and the cheapening of travel, geography has become less of a factor in regards to success and influence, while excellence has quickly become THE factor. No longer can one rely on the protection of trade unions, favorable geography or birth right to secure authority, if someone in India can program better than the kid in San Francisco the Indian will most likely get the job and the authority with which it comes. Excellence is a sure path to gaining authority and a must-have in maintaining authority.

Integrity – Authority is directly related to trust. Due to this it is incredibly important for one to possess integrity if he or she wishes to have influence. People will not allow liars or cheats access to their lives. Without integrity the prior two authority builders, service and excellence, are irrelevant. The ripple effects of a break in integrity are tremendous harming everyone connected to the person or situation where the the failure occurred. Integrity means more than just honesty, it means doing the right thing when no one is looking, understanding there’s no such thing as a secret. Integrity is the ability to consistently make the right decisions when faced with life’s moral crossroads.

All of us have met people that are continually looking to cut corners. Most of the time it is not simply one large lie or breach or integrity that is the cause for a breakdown, but rather a series of small, seemingly inconsequential choices made poorly over a long period of time. One of my favorite definitions of integrity is “wholeness” or “completeness.” Even the smallest break in integrity can destroy a life. People of great integrity command respect and will always have authority because their standard of living raises the bar for everyone around them. Integrity must be the foundation of any person or organization endeavoring to build authority.

Popularity: 4% [?]