I Hope You Dance

Sometimes when I need to clear my head I like to get in my car and go for a drive. Somewhere off the beaten track in the country or along the coast. When I do that I like to listen to music. I have absolutely no talent in that arena. I can't write music, play an instrument, or sing a note; but boy I appreciate good music. It tells a story.

As I was driving yesterday I had a chance to listen again to one of my favorite tunes I Hope You Dance by country star Leanne Womack. The setting of the song is a mother singing to her very young children about the things they will face and the choices they will encounter and her wish that "if you get the chance to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance." In the song she explores things like falling in love, staying true to your principles, and recognizing your relative place in the universe.

I think this is some of what people like Daniel Pink are referring to when they talk about flow, or when Seth Godin talks about each of pursuing our art. Flow as I have discussed previously is that spectacular place where our destination is clear, the balance between effort and result is in harmony and we have the autonomy to pursue of our own volition. I wonder if it was also this goal that the Founding Fathers meant when they talked about "the pursuit of happiness" and the concept of personal competency; that balance of the right and responsibility to be competent and self reliant.

As Ms. Rimes sings there is no guarantee built into this pursuit, it is the right and the decision to pursue the journey that is important.

I have to say when I read statistics that say that 55% of Americans are dissatisfied in their jobs, only 30% describe themselves as engaged, and we are spending $5 trillion on turnover and another $200 billion on "presenteeism" it doesn't sound like too many people are "dancing".

I wonder if creating engaged environments is a way to let people "dance"? I keep reading that clear expectations, respect, fairness and equity, and shared values are the keys to engagement and productivity. Is it just me or does this kind of sound like the "dancing" that both Leanne and the Founding Fathers had in mind?

What if those of us who build organizations or lead them built the opportunity to "dance" into our models? You know things like clear expectations, balanced feedback, autonomy, respect, and connection to something larger.

It seems to me that the Industrial Revolution, Frederick Taylor, and the Calvinist work ethic don't leave much room for "dancing". I think it is also okay for "dancing" to include work. Although I have seen dancers of all kinds demonstrate sprezzatura I recognize the practice and hard work that went into achieving that level of performance. It isn't for the faint hearted.

Maybe I have stretched my metaphors too broadly, but I have decided to heed Leanne's advice and look for my opportunities to "dance" and to encourage others to "dance" as well.

So I guess my wish for all of you is that "if you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance"........

Achieving Spezzatura

I enjoy Seth Godin. He challenges you and conventional wisdom and pushes you to examine your life and expectations.

As I have mentioned previously I recently finished his new book - Linchpins, about the people who are really the most critical in our organizations. Godin argues and I agree that the most important skills in any organization are the skills it takes to bind people together and convert them from a group into a team with a shared vision and goals. He also points out that linchpins don't value compliance very much. They value their "art" and the work. Unfortunately our current system has managed to institutionalize compliance in almost every aspect of our society from education to the world of work. He goes so far as to say the educational system was built to provide an army of compliant serfs to staff our "factories"; factories not just in terms of manufacturing, but computer programming and administrative functions. Anything where standardization and "process" are king.

He also argues that this standardization hurts rather than helps in the long term. When I look at the level of engagement world wide coupled with turnover and job dissatisfaction I am inclined to agree.

Sprezzatura is an Italian word that translates into being able to do your craft without a lot of visible effort- with grace and elan rather than sweating and grunting. It probably causes people with a strong Calvinist ethic to writhe uncomfortably in their chair.

When I watched the women's figure skating competition for the gold medal I think sprezzatura was what I saw exhibited by the young woman from Korea, it was not just that she performed a brilliant routine it was that she was so graceful and elegant you almost forgot how difficult those moves were to accomplish.

My personal goal is to achieve sprezzatura in my work. It has caused me issues in my "corporate life". I have actually had more than one supervisor criticize me because it didn't look like I was working "hard" enough. I asked them if there was an issue with my work or output and they indicated there wasn't, but one actually commented, "I never see you sweat".

I like the idea of organizations and people I work with experiencing sprezzatura, the work is performed and expectations are met , but in such a way that it seems effortless and elegant. It creates an opportunity for engagement not only for those doing the "work", but those enjoying the benefit.

Commitment or engagement is where employees "join up" rather than comply. They come into their organizations and their lives with a connection to both the work and the vision of the organization. They are in congruence. The studies say that this engagement can be correlated to higher results and benefit all key performance indicators. Maybe in some ways these organizations are allowing their employees to enjoy a level of Sprezzatura.

So I would leave you with a couple of thoughts:

• What would sprezzatura look like for you personally?
• Would you rather have your employees work hard, or achieve sprezzatura?

I know what my answers are......

A Real Paradigm Shift

Every once in a while you get to experience a real paradigm shift.

A number of years ago I had an opportunity to attend a presentation/demonstration by Monty Roberts the "Horse Whisperer". If you are familiar with horse training vernacular you know that for the last couple of hundred years the technique of training horses has been referred to as "breaking" the horse. In short to teach the horse to "comply" with our will and instruction. Roberts discussed some things that were pretty intriguing to me. The fact that horses are both a herd and a "prey animal". Their primary reaction to threats is to flee. The herd part of their instinct is that they are essentially programmed to "join up" with others rather than attempt to go it alone. With that in mind he proposed a different methodology- rather than "breaking" the horse why not extend an invitation to the horse to "join up" with you and become part of your herd? In the space of a little over an hour I saw a horse that had never been ridden accept a saddle, bridle, and rider. That is a paradigm shift!

Because of what I do my mind immediately went to my own experiences with people and organizations. What if we were to offer an opportunity to employees to "join up" with us rather than try to impose our organizational values or even our personal values for those of us that lead and manage teams? That became part of the fabric of my model of moving from compliance to commitment.

This week I had the opportunity to be exposed to another profound paradigm shift by a brilliant colleague. This model identifies behavioral "channels" in the subconscious mind and allows you to "retrain" the channel to create opportunities for profound and sustained changes in the behavior of individuals and teams. By creating the new "channel" you are allowing them to join up rather than imposing your model or view.

I am not confident or competent enough to discuss this model in detail at this stage, but I assure you you will be hearing more from me on this topic as I understand it and its application.

Thank you Reut for sharing your brilliance and your vision with me and the others. I am very excited about seeing where this new paradigm takes us... What new "paradigms" are you open to exploring?

Do We Have A Leadership Crisis?

We are in an interesting time and as you know this whole topic of leadership is a passion of mine. I become especially concerned when we can use language like 'jobless recovery" with a straight face.

I had a chance to read John Baldoni's blog on Harvard Publishing-http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/baldoni/2009/11/what_it_takes_to_lead_now.html and I have to tell you that it didn't provide me any comfort.

Baldoni references a recent McKinsey and Company survey citing that only 48% of managers believe that providing inspiration during the crisis is their job and 46% feel a responsibility to provide direction. Even more alarming the numbers drop to 45 and 39% post crisis. To make me feel even worse only 30% felt responsible for motivating their employees during the crisis and it drops to 23% post crisis!

Let me sum it up, less than 50% of the managers surveyed believe that inspiration, direction, motivation, and accountability are essential for managing corporate performance! I don't know about you, but that scares the hell out of me!

The defenders of course say that those are "senior management" or "executive responsibilities". They see their roles as tactical, gutting it out on the day to day. The problem is this is the "corps" of where that future leadership comes from. When does the age of enlightenment kick in and they recognize and develop their skills in these other areas.

When you add these facts to those including that 40% of "new" managers fail in their first 18 months on the job, usually for "non-technical" reasons, the costs of failures is estimated at between 2 and 4 times annual salary, and less than 30% of the organizations in the world have an employee engagement strategy it provides a pretty grim picture.

To quote Baldoni; "Execution without adequate leadership is short sighted. It will carry a company through a quarter or a year, but it will not provide a foundation for what organizations really need to do, and that is to grow."

I agree with Baldoni and also with Marcus Buckingham -
“Effective leaders don’t have to be passionate. They don’t have to be charming. They don’t have to be brilliant […] They don’t have to be great speakers. What they must be is clear. Above all else, they must never forget the truth that of all the human universals […] our need for clarity is the most likely to engender in us confidence, persistence, resilience, and creativity.”

A recent study by Rhoads and Whitlark also discusses that the crucial foundation for engagement (which by the way yields some wonderful byproducts in areas like productivity, sustainability, and profitability) is trust. Doesn't seem like we are moving the ball in the right direction.

I see time and time again where we seek to systematize leadership- to define it in terms of metrics and statistics. Looks like once again we are missing the point that it is relationships and people.

"Presenteeism" costs the U.S economy an estimated $200+ billion per year and a majority of our managers don't see the underlying issues that cause this phenomena as being their responsibility. We are in deep shit!

I guess these statistics say a couple of things to me:

• I am hoping that the organizations I am working with are represented in the 48% who "get it".
• We need to re-evaluate or management talent acquisition and development processes in a big hurry if we are going to have to make meaningful changes.

So I guess if I was leading an organization I would be asking myself - "Where is my management team on these issues?" and maybe even more importantly, " as a leader what am I doing about it?"

So I guess I have answered my own question- now I would pose one to you " Where do we go from here?" By the way, I wouldn't suggest turning this over to your HR department to fix. This is a key leadership issue.

Change Is In the Air- I Think....

It has been an interesting couple of weeks. I have heard from several people I am close to that they have found important new roles that they are pleased about. I have decided to make a change and sharpen my focus in my own endeavors. The stock market is up- at least temporarily. Many economists are declaring the recession over.

The first thing that is interesting to me is the issue of the economy. I have heard "experts" begin to refer to this as a "jobless" recovery. I don't get that. Is that like Jumbo Shrimp? How to we pronounce the recession over if we have large numbers of people who are still unemployed or underemployed? Because the stock market is up? How is that affecting your personal financial well being?

I read some information recently about a change that concerned me, but didn't shock me. The "change" was that the large financial players have been using the bailout money to fund investments in the market rather than reinvesting in programs and things that really benefit the average American. Coming from financial services recently that doesn't surprise me that much. Most financial service organizations stopped making their profits in the traditional sense; the "margin" between what they paid for deposits and what they make loans for some time ago. They borrowed some "creativity" from other industries and found that there are much better opportunities to generate fee income for "services" such as overdraft protection, ATM access, and other transaction fees.

The interesting thing to me is that they are missing huge opportunities to increase their income and benefit their stakeholders by utilizing things like supply chain management and TQM techniques, but they have been relatively slow adopters.

This weekend the House passed the most sweeping legislation since Medicare on health care reform. Depending on which side of the equation you represent this is either a huge step forward or the continuing "socialization" of our economy. I am suspending judgement. I think our current health care system has significant flaws in a number of areas, notably our ability to deliver high quality health care in an efficient and cost effective manner.

I had hoped that the recession might cause more employers to examine their relationships with stakeholders, especially employees and to address flaws in our models that have existed for years. In many cases I feel like we lost traction. We went back to the "be grateful you have a job model".

We need a new leadership model. Much of our leadership modeling is based on financial and economic metrics- i.e. a "jobless" recovery. When I read about the stresses and reactions from those stresses I am concerned that we are kidding ourselves.

I have decided to focus my "change" efforts at a very basic level, by hopefully effecting the way organizations select and orient their senior leadership teams in their hiring and selection process. My colleague, Joseph Skursky refers to this as "hire hard-manage easy".

I see things on the web asking whether it is OK to probe employee's values alignment with your organizational values before you hire them. My answer is "duh", of course. You can't and shouldn't get into protected areas, but do you really want people in your lifeboat who don't support or understand your core values? I have to tell you after thirty years of experience, changing somebody's values is really hard. It is much easier to align them upfront.

As an employer you also have the freedom within reason to set the values of your organization and require compliance if not commitment to those values. You aren't saying to those who don't share your values they are bad people, you are saying they would be better suited in an environment where they share the organization's values. Trust me, people who are technically competent , but don't represent a good "fit" will never really be outstanding performers.

So I think that we are at a stage where we accept the status quo or we become our own personal change agent. I know which choice I have made, what about you?

The Power Of Relationships

As you all know I agree with Margaret Wheatley that the most important influence in organizations is relationships; not systems, not technology, but relationships.

I had the occasion to join a friend last evening with a friend and colleague of his I hadn't previously met. I found his friend to be charming, personable and very articulate. As our discussion turned to the inevitable " so what business are you in", he said that he worked for an organization that distributes a pharmaceutical type of product that is manufactured in Europe. What was especially interesting was that he shared their "distribution" network was almost exclusively based on relationship selling; no large sales force , no "cold calling". It is based on trust and referral.

A week or so ago I mentioned an article by Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford. He opined that much of the issue with health care in the United States is in many ways relationship based; most Americans rely on their employer for health care and for economic security. Compared to other countries our "safety net" is pretty small. He talked about the effects of stress about their employment and the accompanying systems like health care tied to employment and the direct correlation to health care issues. I agree with him.

I read some articles and listened to a couple of "idea casts" on BNET this week that illustrated the same thing from a different angle- the relationship between employees and leaders and how in these times especially employees watch their leaders for any sign of positive or negative events or signs. They do that normally, but in these times it is exacerbated to the nth degree. Marcus Buckingham says the most important attribute of leadership is clarity- people want to believe their leaders have a vision.

My own personal research validates information published by Peppers and Rogers, BlessingWhite, Gallup, and others about the power of engagement. I am talking about true engagement which includes customer, employee, shareholder, and stakeholder. Organization's with high engagement outperform their competitors consistently and by an order of magnitude. Engagement is about relationships.

I have written and spoken a lot lately about social networks and their increasing importance in communications strategy. I believe that social networking is about relationships.

I have also written and spoken about the "social contract". In historical times the poor were tied to the wealthy. They literally "belonged" to the property or estate for hundreds of years. The American "experiment" was all about eliminating that. You could come here and reinvent yourself.
You could homestead a piece of property of start a business. Then we ran out of frontier. Consistent with the rest of the world the Industrial revolution occurred. We exchanged the value of personal competence for the promise of "security" in return for "obedience" The power of the great capitalist was tempered only by the labor movement. That was about relationships,
however dysfunctional.

The "world" economy changed that social contract. American industry was not always dominant, our quality suffered and correspondingly so did our market share. Interestingly much of the "new" management models like lean manufacturing and TQM have very strong relationship components to them. U.S. companies retreated from economic security in return for "loyalty". Traditional pension plans are almost obsolete. The parental relationship between employers and employed relative to health care is in crisis mode. Our health care model is parental. We don't address root causes of costs, we shift them around. People don't want to share responsibility for their health or the costs of treating them. That is a relationship, although another dysfunctional one.

I am not suggesting that a "parental" model is appropriate. Anybody that has ever heard me speak, worked with me, or read any of my writing knows better. I rather like the concept of "personal competence" and relationships founded on mutual respect and honesty between employer and employed, taxpayer and government, supplier and customer, and individuals. A relationship based on respect, information, and mutual responsibility and built on a foundation of trust. Maybe I am just nostalgic or misguided, but I think that is what the Founding Fathers meant so many years ago when they formed this country.

Tomorrow is Independence Day, maybe a good day to reflect on what they meant and the critical relationships in each of our lives. I think that is what I'll do, how about you?

The Ides of April

Maybe it is a desperate desire for Spring to really arrive or watching the roller coaster of the market, but I sense a need and an opportunity for change.

Once again I have had an opportunity to do some reading and a lot of thinking. A while back I had the opportunity to participate in a survey/study on what makes Human Resources an effective business partner. I just got the results and they weren't terribly surprising to me. The authors wisely pointed out that many of the suggestions regarding HR as a function related to other "staff" functions as well. The big three certainly do:

• Your function needs to exist in the context of the larger organization. Great HR systems, accounting systems, etc do not exist in a vacuum. They need to be integrated into the business. For those of you in an agency or not for profit the business is achieving the organizational mission. The fact that the objective is not a return to shareholders doesn't give us an excuse not to perform effectively and efficiently.
• You need to be value added. It is easy to hide behind compliance or other rules and regulations to explain to our customers why they can't do what they believe they need and want to do. If it was always easy they wouldn't need us. I like to think that when I was involved as an internal HR practitioner I saw myself as a consultant. My job was to provide technical expertise and facilitation to my "clients". When I say facilitation that's what I mean as well. Human resources is a function not a department. We should be sure that management and leadership of our organization both possesses and demonstrates core competency in things like setting expectations, giving feedback, and even administering compensation. Those are tools we should be providing to them, not doing for them.
• Own your space. By this I mean that you need to see yourself as an organizational peer and make sure you have the credibility to pull it off. That means that as well as competency in your discipline you need to be competent about your business. You don't get a seat at the table by either waiting to be invited or by not being able to contribute as a thought partner when you are invited to play.

I also had an opportunity to read a blog post by Stanley Bing on BNET. Like Jeffrey Pfeffer, Bing takes the "mba's" to task. He points out that much of our graduate business education is based on theoretical statistical models and systems; many of which he believes and I agree got us where we are today. We love systems and technology in the U.S. and they are valuable tools if they are used to empower people. Too often they are not, they are vehicles to reduce headcount or costs.

It was interesting, I was having a discussion with my son the other day about our current economic situation with a focus on Detroit. He informed me that a big part of the issue was the lack of personal accountability for the work performed by individuals and protected by the unions. I remember being his age and believing that as well; until I had an opportunity to work in a collective bargaining environment that fully embraced the philosophy of capitalism and Frederick W. Taylor. For those of you that don't remember, Taylor was the "father" of scientific management, the concept that managers manage and workers do what they are told. Add to that the Calvinist concept of pre-destination and you have a kind of industrial elitism that still exists in many industries and organizations.

I am not an apologist for the UAW, but our history of not so benevolent autocracy contribute significantly to the history of labor relations in America.

I think it is telling that we still call the skills surrounding understanding behavior and people "soft" skills while managing machines, systems, and numbers are "hard" skills.

You have heard me and others talk about the return on investment from creating truly engaged organizations. It would seem many of the skills required to do this are "soft" skills.

For those of you that are in the HR profession or other related areas that would be interested in the results of my colleagues study, drop me an email and I would be glad to forward you the summary.

As always your comments and thoughts appreciated.

Negotiating the Rapids

Well it has been another interesting week. The market is lower, some folks are already declaring the stimulus package a failure (I think it's a little premature) and businesses and people are very nervous.
The next few months are what I am referring to as the rapids. We are going to be facing challenges that we haven't faced before and how we navigate has long term implications. Here are some of my thoughts:

• Act, don't react. Many organizations are going to look at rapidly softening markets and look for actions to take. Action is good as long as there is thought around it. Organizations will be in a position of looking at their staffing requirements, marketing expenditures, training, etc . In our service economy "payroll" is one of our largest expenses. It is necessary and appropriate to adjust our workforce from time to time. Do it carefully and methodically. Things like across the board cuts, hiring freezes, etc. are all tactics. Be sure they are the right ones. If you don't have a strong performance management and measurement methodology now might be a real good time to implement one.
• Clarity is king. I have quoted Marcus Buckingham multiple times on the most important role of leadership as being clear. At times like these the need for clear confident leadership becomes even more critical. Your employees are going to want to know that you see a future, that there is a plan.
• Involve your team. This is a time when a management team can really gel or come apart. I believe that when we are making critical decisions we need to involve all levels of management. You don't have to involve them in the same way, but retreating to a place where you make all the decisions or in larger organizations all the decisions are made at the C level does a couple of things, neither of them positive. Number one, it says we don't think you are smart or competent enough to participate. Number two, it puts them in a position where they can not explain or share accountability for the decisions that are made.
• Make adjustments to your budgets and your staff surgically. I talked with a client this morning who is struggling because they reduced the majority of their "production" staff earlier. Now they have brought in some significant orders and are struggling to meet their commitments because they don't have the staff. You may have a situation where you literally need to add staff in one area while reducing in another.
• Think before you slash training or marketing budgets. One of the first casualties I see in many downturns is training followed by marketing. My concern in this area is that as I have written previously less 30% of the organizations in the world have what could be labeled high engagement workforces. The most important part of high engagement is trust and communications. We don't do a good job of teaching that in our colleges and B schools. We need managers who are highly capable in that area. You also send a message to your high performers that you are reducing investment in their skills development and potential. Similarly with marketing if you are not looking for "blue ocean" or refining products where is your future business going to come from? I have seen organizations so consumed with a downturn or a singular initiative that they "take their eye of the ball" in other areas. The world doesn't stop, your competitors are monitoring your vulnerabilities.
• Play your game. I wrote a piece last week where I talked about best practices among other sacred cows. They may be best practices- for somebody else! Don't blindly follow "what we have always done" or "the industry best practices". This way sound overly simplistic, but after the second guy implements it, it isn't the best practice any more; it is the standard practice.

I am an optimist by nature an explorer if you will. I believe that this downturn may be the catalyst to make us re-examine many things that we have done and change them.

I have written a lot about personal competency. Personal competency is the idea that employee and employer are partners in achieving organizational and individual goals. This downturn is making us realize that our current model of corporate codependency where we "take care of employees" can't continue. Corporate America can't fund it and neither can the government. People are going to have to get involved with decisions about their health care, their retirement, and their future. Trickle down economics didn't trickle down.

I find it somewhat interesting how outraged some politicians are about the stimulus program, but they didn't say much about our "investments" in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

So, wear your life jacket, plot your course and you will survive this trip!

Turtle or Hare- Part Deaux

Last week I talked a little about organizations in this spiraling economy determining whether they wanted to be a "turtle"; retreating into their shell, or a hare seeking opportunity. I wanted to continue that theme a little bit.
The official "prognosticators" have grimly stated that our current economic situation is 1) likely to get worse before it gets better and 2) likely to last at least twelve moths. So what do we do with the time? Here are some of my suggestions:

• Plot your strategy. How many "overnight" successes have you met that spent years refining and executing their strategy whether personally or professionally. In my last position we took some time to reflect and refine our strategies and then launched a multi point strategy with excellent results. (see my case study- a New Paradigm for Credit Unions). Several competitors commented to me later- we thought you guys had given up- you were massing for D -day!
• Examine your team. Anybody else tired of hearing everybody parrot Jim Collins about getting the right people on the bus? You can't just talk about it, you have to do it! If organizations are cutting budgets or slashing product launches and cutting marketing expenses before looking at the performance metrics of your organization and assisting the bottom 10 -15% off the bus you aren't doing what you need to do!
• Look for "blue ocean". Are you proactively looking for new opportunities and new markets? Are their opportunities to bring your product or service into a new sector?
• Examine your systems. I agree with Collins; the enemy of great isn't bad or awful, it is "good" as in "good" enough. Do you have efficient systems in not only data management, but in business intelligence? Is the data being turned into meaningful action plans and being disseminated to the right people?
• Do you have clarity? Marcus Buckingham tells us the most important role of leadership is clarity. Clarity of purpose and vision. Richard Rumelt of UCLA tells us that the key role of management is to remove or minimize ambiguity. Employees need to understand their role in the organizations plan, especially at times like these.
• Do you have an engagement strategy? If you don't you are not alone, but here are some arguments why you should start now. In my article on "presenteeism" I shared with you that we lose $200 billion annually to productivity drain from people who are not fully engaged, are dealing with personal concerns, or just taking up space. In my series on Compliance to Commitment(TM) and engagement I shared the corollary- organizations with high engagement enjoy 21% higher per capita productivity rates, 60% lower turnover, and outperform their peer group averages by 100% on key financial metrics. Their employees see themselves as part of the solution and actively participate in creating solutions, not whining or abandoning ship.
• Are you playing as a team? When business get in trouble or experience tough times I typically see the executive team "huddle" in a conference room making all the decisions: what do we cut, who do we cut, what do we do? Here is a tip- employees at all levels support decisions that they participate in much more consistently than decisions that are imposed on them. I am not suggesting a vote, but giving employees an opportunity to participate in the how if not the what or at least informing them and getting their input conveys respect and value. If your management team and staff can't contribute to these kinds of decisions you might ask yourself why they are part of your team.

I remember hearing that Native Americans ate when food was plentiful and rested when the opportunity presented itself. I also read in Malcolm Gladwell's latest book the difference between a "rice" culture and a "wheat" culture. A rice culture is not seasonal, when you are not planting and harvesting you are preparing for the next growing season. In our "wheat culture" we spent the winter months inside - sounds a lot like "turtling" to me.

So I hope that I have given you somethings to consider. Comments always welcome.

Why We Build Lighthouses

I got the idea of building a "lighthouse" from a great quote that some employees shared with me when I worked at my last "corporate" role.

The idea is to create a vision or an idea that clarifies things for people.
I had a colleague on LinkedIn ask the question the other day - What Do You Do? I responded that I build virtual "lighthouses". She followed up with a question saying "Do you mean you turn people's thinking on?" My answer is I hope so.

I believe that people are the most important resource that any organizations possesses and that the foundation of all relationships is trust. I know some people would say that love makes the world go around, but I can love somebody and not want to do business with them. If I can't trust them there is no basis for the relationship to continue.

I had a discussion with one of my proteges the other day about a relationship she was discouraged about. She was questioning whether or not her time with the organization had come to an end. She felt that she didn't trust her supervisor, her supervisor didn't trust her, and she wasn't sure that she trusted the Executive Team.
I told her I couldn't and wouldn't make the decision for her, but for me that was a sign of time to depart.

Building a lighthouse is about what Marcus Buckingham calls clarity. He says that clarity is the most important quality of a leader- to be able to answer the questions-

• What do we do?
• Why does it matter?
• How do I fit in?

I think he is right, that's what we want from our leaders- clarity. Clarity leads to trust.

It is interesting to see how uncomfortable we remain with the concept of trust and relationships. When you look at organizations that "specialize" in change management they talk a lot about processes, and technology, and ERP and stuff like that. They don't talk very much about trust and relationships.

I talked about the fact that a national study showed that 40% of new managers fail in their first 18 months in the new role. The biggest reason- failure to build relationships and trust. I'm not very good with technology so I guess that I will just keep trying to build lighthouses and relationships.

I'll leave you with another quote from Margaret Wheatly-

In organizations, real power and energy is generated through relationships. The patterns of relationships and the capacity to form them are more important than tasks, functions, roles, and positions.