ATLANTA - Topgrading guru Brad Smart has a great post on his blog called Topgrading in a Down Economy - a Good Time to Hire!
Simply put, Mr. Smart believes that a down economy is a good time to Topgrade, because there is more talent available, often at lower comp levels.
Mr. Smart, a renowned expert on hiring, thinks that all companies "talk the talk" of hiring A-players, but very few of them "walk the walk." Mr. Smart quotes a McKinsey article that stated "... too many firms still dismiss talent management as a short-term, tactical problem rather than an integral part of a long-term business strategy ..."
Yet just like beaten down stocks that are a bargain in the current market -- A-players are available right now for less than they normally would be. I have seen this happen in my own VP-level marketing and ecommerce recruiting practice. More talent is available at lower comp.
According to Mr. Smart, "This happens in every economic downturn -- more people are out looking for jobs, A players can be attracted more easily, and you have the luxury of being able to get more talent cheaper."
Like my dad used to tell me: "You gotta buy your straw hats in the winter."
PHILADELPHIA - Yesterday, I was flying to Philadelphia and reading the latest issue of "Success" magazine on the plane (Dec '08).
Several different, unrelated articles caught my eye, primarily because of a common thread running through each one. The magazine issue itself did not have a theme, per se, but I spotted one. It lunged at me. Jumped off the page.
See if you can nail it in these five stories. The same critically important "leader skill" is embedded in each one.
And you need to have it.
First...
Steven Spielberg's creative genius got an early start. When he was just a kid, he created little stories as he filmed family trips, pets and friends.
To encourage him, his parents brought home a projector, rented movies and showed them to neighborhood kids on summer evenings. Enterprising young Steven charged each kid 25 cents admission, and he donated all the money to charity.
This launched his movie career.
At 13, he created a 40-minute film, "Escape To Nowhere". At 16, a 140-minute sci-fi adventure, "Firelight". And when he was a Boy Scout, he borrowed his dad's 8mm camera and made a 9-minute film called "The Last Gunfight", to earn his photography merit badge.
Second...
TV cook Rachel Ray was shocked the day The Food Network handed her a $360,000 contract -- barely 24 hours after she did a brief food segment on the "Today" show.
And she's done very well since, parlaying that into broadcast stardom and guest shots on TV shows all over the dial.
All the while proclaiming she's a good cook, but not a chef, and has no formal culinary training.
She never BS'd the network, nor her audience. Her "everyman" quality, frankly, is just what the TV execs were looking for, and she hit a grand slam with viewers.
Where'd she get that honest streak? From her mother and mentor, who taught her "Decide who you are and don't try to pretend that you're something other than that."
Third...
Advertising mogul and host of TV's hit show "The Big Idea", Donny Deutsch tells of a talent producer for his show who had a dream of starting an image consulting business, but was befuddled on where to start.
Rather than kick her butt out the door for announcing she'd rather be doing something else, he helped her instead. Advised her to take the next 10 weeks to shop for 10 different friends...for free... all so she could build a portfolio of satisfied clients. Then beginning with #11, start charging. A lot.
Twelve months later, she left to start her own company. Deutsch's farewell gift? A segment on his show that rocket-launched her business.
Next...
Mitch Albom, sportswriter for the Detroit Free Press and weekly contributor to ESPN-TV's "The Sports Reporters", has written three books.
Each became a worldwide best-seller. Each got made into a TV movie.
And each one is about his mentors.
He wrote "Tuesdays With Morrie" about Brandeis University sociology professor Morrie Schwartz.
"The Five People You Meet In Heaven" included the protagonist, his Uncle Eddie.
And "For One More Day", his own mom served as the inspiration for the mother character. His two most profound mentors, he says, were his mom and dad.
And finally...
NFL football star Warrick Dunn is considered one of the most charitable athletes in professional sports. He buys homes for single mothers working multiple jobs -- and to date, he has put a roof over the heads of 78 single parents and 205 children.
Wow. That'll activate the tear ducts.
He says none of his sports accomplishments can match the feeling of giving the keys to a home to a woman who has worked her whole life and never been able to afford one.
His inspiration?
His own mom, a Baton Rouge police corporal, who was shot and killed in an ambush while working a second job as a security guard -- leaving Warrick, the oldest at 18, to become man of the house to five younger brothers and sisters. His mother's humble soul and proud spirit guided him in her absence.
She never owned a home. Could never afford the down payment.
He's now fixing that for women just like her.
There. That's all five.
Did you spot it?
Did you see the common thread running through the lives of those five leaders?
It's mentorship.
It's a leader helping someone less skilled, less able, more junior, more unsure. To find her way. To fulfill his dream. To deal with the difficulties of life. Guiding. Teaching. Encouraging. Caring. Setting the table for success. And providing a sympathetic shoulder when plans go south.
Spielberg, Ray, Albom and Dunn each had mentors. And enjoyed the benefit of aid and counsel from a master.
And Deutsch is a mentor. He dramatically improved the life of a colleague. In fact, his TV show has mentorship as its underpinning -- sharing stories of success that encourage others to break the shackles of their own lethargy.
It doesn't get any more personal than mentorship.
It's one-on-one, baby.
I contend that, in all my years on this planet, my greatest personal growth and development, in business and life, has come -- not from books or CDs. Not from seminars or workshops. Not from listening to speeches, sitting in training classes, or attending webinars.
Oh, make no mistake, I'm a high-volume student and user of all those. Have been for 30+ years. And every one has provided me an unending wealth of knowledge, inspiration, and actionable data.
But my greatest leaps in learning...
That's where the gold is.
How about you? Take a look at your own life. I'm sure you can point to one or two people who have blessed you with their love, encouragement, and caring guidance.
But let's shift gears to something even more important.
LESSONS & ACTIONS FOR YOU:
What are you doing to actively mentor others?
To inspire their self confidence. To help them identify and live their dreams. To launch them into action. To be their rock of Gibraltar when they stumble and fall.
There are few gifts so precious you can give another. And as a leader, frankly, it's not just a nice thing to do.
It's your obligation.
It comes with the territory of leadership. In my world, if you're not mentoring, you're not leading.
Here are seven suggestions for effective mentoring:
(1) Listen more than you speak. Listen for where the pain is. Listen for where the dreams are. It'll help you make it all about them, not about you. Listening builds trust, and you can't be a successful coach without it.
(2) Emphathize. When your mentee has a setback, it's helpful to share a story of when you faced a similar experience. And how you rebounded. When we hear that our heroes have failed too, it serves as inspiration to get back on the horse and ride again.
(3) Help them find their passions. Not just what they're good at, but what electrifies them with excitement. Lots of people have a talent, but don't enjoy it. You can help them two ways. Find what REALLY turns them on. Or realize the passion they already have for what they do, but just didn't see it. Hold up the mirror.
(4) Show tough love when it's called for. Good coaching requires delivering bad news, too. Holding firm boundaries. Pushing them into uncomfortable terrain. Saying what needs to be said to move them past their roadblocks. Taking the risk they won't come back.
(5) Lead by example. If you recommend one thing, but do another yourself, you're done. Credibility shot. Game over. Walk your own talk. That's the definition of integrity.
(6) Formalize it. Schedule regular time to be with your mentee(s). Don't let it happen by chance -- it won't. We're all too busy. Schedule consistent, regular time each day or week or month. Block it on your calendar. Treat it as one of the most important meetings you'll have. I recommend all leaders have coaching meetings -- not less than monthly -- with each direct report one-on-one. Unplug the phone, take no emails, allow no interruptions.
(7) Make them write it down. Their passions, their values, their goals, their actions, their deadlines. All of it. Don't accept the flimsy "It's okay, I'll remember it" excuse. That's BS. Winners write down their plans and commitments -- it shows laser-focused intent. I've told clients for years "If you don't write it down, you're just screwing with yourself. Get serious, commit it to paper, or let's move on and talk about something that IS important to you."
Like all tasks worth doing, mentorship -- done right -- involves a disciplined, structured process. It ain't happenstance.
Put that structure in place for those YOU mentor. Your employees. Fellow team members. Friends. Children.
Yes, leadership from a distance has value. But limited.
Have the guts to get up close and personal.
__________________________________________________________
Rick Houcek is a regular contributor to MarketingHeadhunter.com. Rick facilitates off-site strategic planning retreats, helping CEOs and Leadership Teams create high-impact plans that overcome the crippling effects of lousy execution and get successfully implemented. His Power Planning strategic process drives action through his Escape-Proof Accountability system. It's ideal for small and mid-size businesses. To bring this potent weapon to your team, contact Rick by phone, fax or email. Visit his web site at Soar with Eagles.com. Ask about his 100% No-Risk Guarantee.
NEW YORK CITY - Here's a Friday funny: A friend of mine from NYC has just sent me these updated financial terms. The ones for Value Investing and Bull Market are a sad commentary. Sad but true. Wait, that's not funny!
It has dominated the news for several weeks. Maybe you've felt the sting of the financial crisis in your pocketbook. I hope not.
Anyway, there's a burr under my saddle about this whole bailout thing. And it's instructive for leaders. (No, it isn't the final decision. As I've said repeatedly, I don't use this blog for personal politics. It's about leadership. Period.)
Here's what's enraging me:
A high-integrity leader must make difficult and controversial choices every day. And in the end -- especially in times of crisis -- Job 1 is to make unselfish decisions that serve the greater good. Even if they anger small pockets of people. Even if they piss off influential supporters. Even if they get a carton of eggs thrown at their picture window at 2 am.
And the one thing the high-integrity leader never does is act in his own personal best interest at the expense of the greater good. That's hugely taboo in integrity circles. Oh, to be sure, leaders violate that every day. But I said "high integrity" leaders.
They ... don't.
Yet once again, some of our law-making politicians -- who should be the highest integrity leaders in the land, don't you agree? -- have shown their true colors by doing what's best for themselves, even if it's not best for the country and the citizenry. They proved it with their bailout votes. No, not their actual yay or nay vote ... but their reason for the vote.
Let me explain.
Last week, after the first House vote that killed the bailout package (before the Senate vote that approved it and the second House vote that approved it), USA Today reported that one of the reasons for the "no" votes was... ...political fear.
Four USA Today staff writers collaborated on this front-page story (dated Sept. 30). These reporters did some digging, computed some numbers, made a disturbing discovery, and arrived at a profound conclusion.
Here it is.
Specifically, despite the urgings of their own party leaders -- both Democrats and Republicans who were called to the White House to create a bipartisan bill that would serve the needs of BOTH party interests AND the American people... ...even then... ..."political fear" drove 75% of House members who are in close races in the Nov. 4 elections to vote no.
The important wording there is ... in close races. (The next 3 paragraphs are quoted directly from USA Today.)
"Republicans facing tough re-election challenges deserted their leaders in droves. 32 of 37 Republicans listed as endangered by the non-partisan Cook Political Report voted no, compared with 18 of 29 Democrats in the same category.
On the flip side, 22 of 29 Republicans who are leaving the House this year voted for the bill. 2 of 6 retiring Democrats voted against the bill. (...meaning 4 of 6 retirees voted for.) 'There aren't many vulnerable members who voted yes,' said David Wasserman, House editor for the Cook report. A yes vote, he said, would give 'every opponent a new blistering ad to run against you.' "
Now it's clear.
Wasserman and the 4 USA Today writers came to the same conclusion. That since a high percentage of those in tough races voted no ... and a high percentage of those retiring voted yes ... then it sure LOOKS like many of those in tough races voted in their own self interest, to preserve their re-election bid, and not have to deal with voter backlash.
That's a lousy reason, and it boils my blood. Doesn't it yours?
Further, maybe (just maybe) more of them would have voted differently had their re-elections not been so rocky. Yes, I'm sure one could argue the opposite, but on appearance anyway, that's the conclusion they're drawing. Frankly, it looks the same to me. So how they voted is not in question. But why they voted the way they did, is.
And it's of grave concern. Looks like a case of a vote for "me" rather than a vote for "we".
Translation: they served their own personal self interest, not the greater good, which they were elected to do.
Therein lies my anger. And mistrust.
We elect our leaders with the faith that they will study the issues deeply, then make intelligent decisions on our behalf, not theirs. Why is that so much to ask? Oh sure, I get that there will always be disagreement over which is the "greater good" choice.
Politicians and voters argue that daily. On every issue. But what voters can universally agree on is ... the choice that is clearly NOT greater good is the one that serves only the politician's election status. I also get that this in nothing new.
Since time began, in governments the world over, there has been public outcry against self-serving politicians. And now, in this bailout vote, those House members facing close re-elections seem to have brought the white-hot light of scrutiny on themselves again.
Two key questions:
Lessons & Actions For You:
In "Good To Great", the best-seller by Jim Collins, one of the characteristic traits of a Level 5 Leader -- the pinnacle position you should be shooting for -- is the willingness to make self-less, rather than selfish, decisions.
For leaders well known to have little or no integrity, we expect them to take the self-serving way out. No surprise. Thankfully, only a small percentage of leaders fall in here. At the other end, the high integrity leaders always decide in favor of the greater good, even when it's not best for them as an individual. No surprise here either. Sadly, this group too is only a small percent of the whole.
But what's maddening -- and deceptively unpredictable -- is that dangerously large group in the middle. The ones who proudly proclaim to be of high integrity, but then occasionally or frequently make selfish decisions -- violating the very ethics they purport to live by. We never know when. We just know we can't trust them. They are consistent only in their inconsistency.
Bottom line to all this is simple. Or should be. Always take the high road.
Here's a simple litmus test. Look at yourself in the mirror and ask: "If I make choice A, who will benefit and who will be hurt? If I make choice B, who will benefit and who will be hurt? If I make choice C, who will benefit and who will be hurt?"
Make three columns on a sheet of paper, one each for choices A, B, C (more if there are additional options). Now divide each of the columns into two, one for Benefit, one for Hurt. Then, start writing.
Want a couple examples of folks who do it right?
Peter Ueberroth, who ran for California governor in the mid-term election a few years ago, bowed out of the race with four weeks to go, behind by a wide margin, rather than engage in the only election tactic that could give him hope of closing a large gap in a short time. Mud-slinging at opponents. As easy as that negative choice is for others, Ueberroth was only interested in running a clean, positive campaign. In dropping out, he decided in favor of the greater good rather than personal interest. A noble choice.
Another... Last week, a client and former Marine told me that in the chow line, Marines with higher rank always eat last. Soldiers who fight the battles eat first. If they run out of food, too bad for the officers. It's part of their code. That's a "greater good" decision, and one I admire.
The question for you is: Which side of the ledger do your decisions fall on? Greater good? Or self interest? If you got fidgety reading all this, squirming in your seat, maybe it's time for an ethics check.
If, on the other hand, you can honestly say you always make greater good decisions ... and a majority of your constituency would agree (heck, there are always a few who won't) ...
Congratulations!
You're in a small fraternity of the highest integrity Level 5 Leaders. We need a whole lot more like you.
__________________________________________________________
Rick Houcek is a regular contributor to ManagementRecruiter.com. Rick facilitates off-site strategic planning retreats, helping CEOs and Leadership Teams create high-impact plans that overcome the crippling effects of lousy execution and get successfully implemented. His Power Planning strategic process drives action through his Escape-Proof Accountability system. It's ideal for small and mid-size businesses. To bring this potent weapon to your team, contact Rick by phone, fax or email. Visit his web site at Soar with Eagles.com. Ask about his 100% No-Risk Guarantee.
And if, by chance, they ARE written somewhere, I promise you, I've not seen them. (Though truthfully, it would shock me if no one else has ever thought of them.)
They stem from my ever-growing frustration over the pitiful lack of "new learning" that's going on in this world.
Seems the vast majority of two-legged, upright Homo sapiens are quite content with whatever level of knowledge they acquired from their last class in college or high school -- and haven't attended a workshop or seminar, cracked a self-help book, or even peeled the shrink-wrap off an educational CD -- since their final school bell rang way back when.
And it pisses me off.
I have no empirical data on what percent of people willingly and routinely self-engage in new learning tools after leaving school -- although the data likely exists somewhere -- but I'm certain it's a discouragingly small number.
Has to be. The visible evidence surrounds us daily.
Just look at the staggeringly high number of people who have lousy people skills. No leadership ability. Weak managerial skills. No business acumen. Little common sense. An inability to negotiate effectively. No drive, determination or tenacity. Little self esteem or confidence. Don't communicate well. Can't manage their own money.
And are taking no action to acquire the skills or obtain the knowledge on these topics that could turn their life around and improve their job status.
When lo and behold, it's all immediately available to them -- from a vast range of sources. In multiple learning media formats. Compiled by experts with hands-on experience. At very reasonable costs.
In short, it's plentiful in supply, easy to get, cheap to buy.
Yet they don't seek it out. Won't buy it. Or choose not to use it.
Instead, countless numbers of low-achieving drones spend inordinate amounts of time thumbing video games, watching mindless TV, drinking at bars ... well, you get my point.
From all this visible data, you have to reach the same conclusion I have -- that the majority of world inhabitants have some knowledge gained through formal school education -- but once school gets out, mindlessly transition into "life idiots" with no additional learning. With each passing day, they gain in age, but remain static in brainpower and initiative.
Treading water.
And sooner or later -- whether at age 18 or 23 or 41 or 56 or older -- DING DONG! -- they show up in a business suit at your company's door looking for a job.
Some of them interview like a champ, mask their ignorance well, and get the job.
Then suddenly, their lifelong lack of self-initiative for new learning becomes your new performance problem. Congratulations.
So...
I got fed up. Sick to death of it. And did something about it.
In the late 1980s, I overhauled my entire interview style, format, and questions. To flush out who is -- and who isn't -- a self-starter and lifelong learner.
It's too long to tell all of it here, but I do want to share three killer interview questions that can help you avoid this epidemic problem.
LESSONS & ACTIONS FOR YOU:
As company president -- and the final authority and chief steward for making sure we invited only high-flying eagles into our nest -- I started asking job candidates this question:
"Tell me the names of your five favorite self-improvement authors."
Yeah, you guessed it. I wanted to know if a candidate freely engaged -- on her own nickel -- in her own time -- in ongoing, repetitive self education.
Frankly, I didn't give a horse's hind end if the authors they named wrote books on stamp collecting, paper training puppies, or building model trains in your basement -- as long as they could name five.
I just wanted tangible proof they were constant seekers of new learning. I figured five was enough. That if they could name five, they probably knew a lot more.
Sure, I admit, I was most impressed if -- and was hoping -- their choices revolved around learning that was applicable in the workplace. But I would accept it if not, because the HABITUAL BEHAVIOR was there.
The result of asking this question was downright frightening. Mind-boggling actually.
Even today, I shudder remembering the early days of asking -- and seeing blank stares, glazed eyes, and speechless mouths.
Stutter. Stammer. I stumped 'em.
After enough rejections, I realized most people had never before put the two words "self" and "improvement" together in the same sentence -- let alone next to each other.
To be fair, I did get several who rattled off names like Napoleon Hill, Dennis Waitley, Les Brown, Zig Ziglar, Stephen Covey, Jim Rohn, Brian Tracy, Earl Nightingale, Ken Blanchard, Deepak Chopra, Roger Dawson, Paul Meyer, and more.
Not many, but some. These were the people I was looking for. The cream.
But then, I realized the flaw in my own question: Even of those who do read, few actually apply.
I needed to go deeper.
So I expanded my favorite ONE question ... to THREE questions. In addition, I changed the first question -- expanding it beyond just authors.
So, here are my favorite three interview questions -- in the sequence they are asked:
(1) "Tell me the names of five people in your life from whom you learned the most valuable life lessons."
Allow them to answer, then ask...
(2) "Tell me one life lesson you learned from each one -- five in total."
Allow them to answer, then ask...
(3) "Please give me one recent example -- five in total -- demonstrating your use or application of each of the five lessons."
Then sit back, shut up, and watch 'em squirm.
And now I'll reveal a secret: Their answer to THAT question -- the last one -- is the only answer that matters. Ignore the first two.
Why?
Because the first answer shows only that they listened.
The second demonstrates only that they remembered.
But the third ... it shows they applied.
And that pattern of behavior -- applying what's learned -- is worth gold to you as a leader.
By the way, as you may have surmised, if you get no answer to Q1, nix the next two. They become pointless. Likewise, if you get no answer to Q2, nix the last one. Again, pointless.
Would you be surprised to learn that I actually terminated interviews if they had no answer? It's true.
Think about it. Why would I want someone whose work would directly or indirectly impact our valuable clients ... who has to be told to learn? I didn't. I wanted people for whom taking the initiative to learn was already an integral part of their everyday behavior -- even outside the workplace -- at their own expense -- with no nudging, prodding, begging or forcing. It was already who they were.
Isn't that what you want too? A pre-established pattern of self-learning?
Well then...
Stop settling for mediocre. Why not give the three questions a shot? Just be prepared for disappointment in a high percentage of candidates.
Remember, eagles don't flock. You find them one at a time.
__________________________________________________________
Rick Houcek is a regular contributor to ManagementRecruiter.com. Rick facilitates off-site strategic planning retreats, helping CEOs and Leadership Teams create high-impact plans that overcome the crippling effects of lousy execution and get successfully implemented. His Power Planning strategic process drives action through his Escape-Proof Accountability system. It's ideal for small and mid-size businesses. To bring this potent weapon to your team, contact Rick by phone, fax or email. Visit his web site at Soar with Eagles.com. Ask about his 100% No-Risk Guarantee.
There came a point in the story where a man -- an outsider -- was walking down main street in a rough new settlement, when he was spotted by a local, who shouted at him "Hey, your kind is not wanted in this town." Then he turned to other townfolk and yelled, "We don't want him, do we? Let's show him what we do to foreigners."
At that moment, the townspeople who, up until then, had been going calmly about their business, angrily erupted into a loud, snarling mob. They grabbed rocks, picked up clubs, drew guns, and charged hastily toward the unwanted man. He was pelted and kicked and pounded and cursed -- when suddenly amidst the impromptu lynching, the sheriff appeared and saved the day by calling off the dogs, then locking the man up for his own safety.
It all happened in a matter of seconds.
I thought for a moment. Not one of those townspeople knew anything about that man. They didn't know what kind of husband or father he was. Whether or not he was a law-abiding citizen. They had no knowledge of his family or upbringing or job or values or contribution to the community.
Nothing.
They just knew one thing.
That a fellow townsman had angrily shouted at the top of his lungs that he should be gone. Pronto. That fellow townsman ALONE had passed judgment on the outsider. HE ALONE had rendered a decision that the man was unfit to walk among them. HE ALONE had decided the man must be taught a lesson.
And in a split second, he was able to convince a group of peaceful, mild-mannered citizens to join in his anger and maliciously punish the outsider.
How?
Mob rule.
It's that instantaneous moment when a group of people -- otherwise calm, decent and civil -- turn into an enraged, destructive mob by the violent urgings of one loud, infuriated person who rallies them into explosive action.
Hollywood loves to insert these volcanic moments into movie storylines. I laugh at the silliness and the quickness of the fickle masses to join in. It's fiction, after all.
But hey, mob rule is not always make-believe. Happens in everyday real life, too.
I saw it happen live on Dr. Phil. Unlike the movie, it was non-violent, but it was mob rule nonetheless.
Here's what happened. A few months ago, right after New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had resigned in disgrace, awash in a prostitution ring, his scandal was the topic of the day on the Dr. Phil show. Shortly before, Spitzer had resigned his governorship in a news conference while his dejected-looking wife Silda stood beside him. The question being discussed was: Given the gravity of the situation and how he disgraced his wife, should she have accompanied him to the podium?
Robin McGraw, Phil's wife, said she would never accompany Phil under similar circumstances. No way. She was firm, decisive, and crystal clear in her words and tone. To her, the dishonor and disrespect of his actions would cause her to let him take the heat alone. Her support, her love, and her respect, at that point, would be gone. The audience, mostly women, erupted in thunderous applause. As a viewer, it sounded like the full audience -- or close to it -- was agreeing with her.
This is a tempered, non-violent example of mob rule. An articulate person states a clear, sound position that makes sense, and listeners are persuaded to stand in support. Regardless of what they may have thought beforehand.
But wait -- then something else happened. Bishop T.D. Jakes, spiritual leader and author, who was a guest on the show, then said this, and I'm paraphrasing: We're only seeing a small portion of their marriage on camera. We don't know what their marriage is like without cameras. She accompanied him for her reasons and we can't pretend to know what those reasons are. We just have to respect them.
Hmmm. Makes sense. Then, more thunderous applause from the audience.
More articulate persuasion. More mob rule.
But hold on a minute. This, too, sounded like the full audience applauding. So how can two opposing viewpoints be supported by the very same people?
Answer: That's how mob rule works.
It plays on the fact that the large majority of people are followers -- waiting for a leader to establish a direction, announce a cause, or express an opinion they can agree with -- so they can jump on the bandwagon and follow it. And they'll sway in the breeze, leaping from one viewpoint to the next, if each sounds good enough. I do not mean to suggest that Robin McGraw or J.D. Jakes had "mob rule" in mind as an intentional outcome when they voiced their opinions. But even so ... it happened.
Some most certainly DO intend it. Others certainly do not. But it happens anyway.
Lessons & Actions For You:
What can leaders learn from this?
Plenty.
Let's go back to the McGraw-Jakes example. They had different views -- so who was right?
For my purposes here, it doesn't matter one hoot. That's not the point of this piece. (It's personal preference anyway. In my view, heck, they both made good sense.)
The point I wish to drive home is, like most "tools", mob rule too can be use for both good and evil. And as a leader, you have the position, title, and authority to use it either way. Your choice.
The late Cavett Robert, founder of the National Speakers Association, said "Most people are walking around, umbilical cord in hand, just waiting for someone to plug it into." Sadly, he's right. Most people just follow the crowd. Largely without opinions or viewpoints, they wait to see which way the majority will swing -- then go with it, assuming it must be right.
Unscrupulous leaders -- and there are plenty -- use this fact to their sinister advantage.
Honorable leaders use it too. But for dignified, principled, virtuous means.
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not mean to suggest that an honorable leader should NOT use the principle of mob rule to gain advantage. On the contrary, any sales presentation, any persuasive speech, or any morale-building rally you've ever given is intended, most definitely, to sway people to your viewpoint, to your product, to your cause. Hopefully in large numbers.
And that's a good thing.
As long as it is grounded in integrity, in truth, in ethics.
Rallying a crowd into a frenzy to storm a building and murder its defenseless inhabitants is one thing. Rallying a crowd into a frenzy to storm a building and save a child's life is quite another.
Both require the same skill of persuasion to gain mob rule. But one is for evil intent, the other for good.
I'll summarize with two thoughts.
Always walk the high ground.
__________________________________________________________
Rick Houcek is a regular contributor to ManagementRecruiter.com. Rick facilitates off-site strategic planning retreats, helping CEOs and Leadership Teams create high-impact plans that overcome the crippling effects of lousy execution and get successfully implemented. His Power Planning strategic process drives action through his Escape-Proof Accountability system. It's ideal for small and mid-size businesses. To bring this potent weapon to your team, contact Rick by phone, fax or email. Visit his web site at Soar with Eagles.com. Ask about his 100% No-Risk Guarantee.
