Last week we explored the first concept of “The Big Three.”
This week, we’ll outline the second one.
This one is quite simple – It’s merely a suggested two-word definition of leadership.
Leadership
What Three Things Make the Biggest Difference? (Part One)
It is good to be efficient, yes. It is also good to be comprehensive.
Sometimes, however, those two things don’t work well together.
Since starting this business, most of my work helping groups has been through 4-8 hour workshops.
There is a demand for leadership training that can be delivered in much shorter periods of time, though.
My other favorite equation…
T=r+d
…where T is “trust,” r is “reliability,” and d is “delight.”
I attended EntreFest 2011, and one of the best sessions I attended was
Why “Tabatha” smokes “Boss”…
As a guy obsessed with maxing out potential in groups and individuals – and one who believes the person at the top is the one most responsible for making it happen – I was pretty fired up about the concept of Undercover Boss. In each episode, a CEO goes undercover, in disguise, to work next to front-line employees.
The format got tired quickly – boss leaves fancy home and doting family, stays in fleabag hotels, realizes he/she is totally inept at frontline tasks, discovers that employees are (gasp!) real people with real problems, cries (most episodes), promises to change, and gives lavish rewards to the episode’s featured employees.
What a great concept – and what a disappointment in a show.
What ought Iowa’s schools consider next?
Recently, Iowa’s new Director of the Department of Education, Jason Glass, posed three questions in his blog.
These questions got people talking – mostly online. Mr. Glass has made himself very transparent and accessible online, particularly on Twitter. This is a good example of best practices in leadership.
And that’s the purpose of this blog: to explore best practices in leadership. Our schools need leadership to become as effective as possible. One such leader is today’s guest blogger, Matt Pries.
“Generational Differences” offer opportunities, not excuses…
Last week, I visited with someone close to my age (40s) about people in their 20s. The topic of generational differences came up, and I was reminded of the pervasiveness of the current stereotype many of us have about people in their 20s:
Entitled, lazy, hyper-connected, always with the earbuds in, leaving work as soon as possible, doing the minimum necessary, always
Things successful leaders avoid saying (Part 2)
Last week, I raised up the value of the principles in “Drive” by Dan Pink. If, as research has shown, people are motivated by autonomy, then there is a class of words we ought to avoid, as they can crush autonomy. These may include “ought,” or “must,” but let’s focus on the one that seems to pass judgement:
An addendum to the post on Positivity (Rigorous, not Ruthless)..
Came across this — another take on that same topic: Kindness At The Office – Forbes.com.
Positive leadership isn’t the same thing as “soft” leadership
Sometime, when people are urged to take a positive approach to leadership, there is some push-back. Some people seem to equate “positivity” with being super-nice, but being kind is much deeper than a spewing of empty compliments like “good job” or “nice work” or “super!”
You can’t be too kind. But, you can be too soft. That is the difference, and I’ll admit that I have had trouble sometimes helping folks understand the difference. I just read Good to Great and have taken quite a liking to Jim Collins’s phrase “rigorous, not ruthless.” This is the message for leaders who would like to be positive. In fact, participants in Group Dynamic workshops are often trained in the art of “behavior –> outcome” statements. (Covered in an earlier post). This focus on behavior, and the high standards of the organization, can be done in a way that is positive, not negative. In a way that is rigorous, not ruthless.