A Washington culture at GM?

If I meant Washington as in George, then I’d be cheering. Sadly, I refer to Washington DC, the White House and Congress in particular. If we thought GM was in trouble before, just wait.

I read today of a speech given by GM CEO Fritz Henderson in which he points out that back in the 60’s, the corporate culture at GM was so good it was copied by scores of other companies. He compared that to recent times when their culture and management system has been heavily criticized and no one copies them any more. Then he said this: “I certainly think our management system has to drive the right decisions, so we’re fast, we’re accountable, we’re market-focused, and everything we do within the company has to be focused on that.”

Well, does anyone really believe that’s going to happen with the US Government being the majority owner of GM? And the labor unions holding almost 18%? (they control a whopping 65% of Chrysler!).

Creation of corporate culture begins with the senior leadership team and especially the CEO or owner. It’s the job of the CEO to set the vision, look into the future and create a vision so compelling that people will follow gladly. Fritz Henderson may be the CEO of GM, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking the vision and management system will be generated from anywhere other than the White House and Congress. We’ve already seen the President of the United States outline his vision for the US auto industry in general, from the types of cars he thinks should be made to the management structure of GM and Chrysler to specific compensation systems. And where does that leave the alleged CEO of GM, Fritz Henderson, who, by the way, received his position through White House influence?

It makes Henderson a figure-head, devoid of any real leadership influence. His primary responsibilities are taken over by the US Government and he warms the CEO seat while waiting to be told what to do.

This is exactly how not to create a high-performing culture. I’ve read that well, GM and others did a pretty lousy job on their own, this will force the unions to think and act like owners and the government will give Henderson a long leash because they really don’t want to be in car business. Right. And I’m leaving for Fantasy Island tomorrow.

Culture influences belief and behavior, and an effective culture is essential to business success. If it’s being determined by Washington then I see no cause for optimism and plenty of reasons to worry.

Push back the falling sky

This is not time to be Chicken Little. The sky has fallen on certain industries and in some cases they seemed to actively pull it down themselves, like the US auto industry. GM and Chrysler need only look in the mirror to see the real reason for their downfalls. But other segments of the economy are holding their own and here again, the reason is internal. They're doing things differently and making improvements. It only makes sense to do this.

I know of a couple of movie theater complexes that are doing pretty well through innovating and diversifying their services. Yes, they don't have to only show movies! They can and now do other things, like renting out their spaces for group gatherings, and improve upon what they already do, like better seating and a place for kids to play (like McDonald's has done for years). I love having reclining seats and cup holders when I go to a movie. Wouldn't you?

When I heard Rahm Emmanuel exclaim "never waste a good crisis," I was concerned because I don't trust his motives. On the other hand, that's great advice for the business community today! Is there a crisis? Yes, there is (although some of it is just perception). Don't waste it by running for cover or becoming inert. Do what my client is doing that I wrote about in my previous post. Examine the whole business. See what can be improved and do it. Reinvent yourself in areas of your strengths and market need.

Tony Robbins once wrote that when things go wrong we should immediately ask what's great about this situation. That seems counter-intuitive, but I can tell you from personal experience it works. Businesses today should do the same.

Make the recession work for you.

Some people know how to make this recession work for them. I speak with too many who don't and who pull the covers up and hide, thinking they'll just go into neutral and wait it out. I have a client who's doing everything right and I recently spoke with her to find out more.

Her business has taken about a 20-30 % hit in revenue, leaving the company with more spare time than they want. Rather than just take early days, they're using that time to revisit every facet of the business and make improvements. The core services are being inspected to find greater efficiencies, new services have been planned and are close to rolling out, and marketing has been ramped up. The sales team has a new model to follow that has already brought in new clients and ensured repeat business from current and past clients. Office personnel have been shuffled according to need and strengths, so layoffs have been minimal (only a few).

The result is renewed excitement as her people have a clearer focus for both the present and the future. Sales are down for the year, yes, but they're increasing. And as they lay a strong, improved foundation for the future, they will be in a terrific position as the economy rebounds. When I spoke with her I heard optimism, the kind that comes from focus, vision, hard work and a realistic understanding of the economy.

Business owners of all kinds should learn from this. What a great time this is to have some time for examination and improvement, even reinvention if called for. Let's see more of that.

Chase Bank declares war on me

This week I joined the legions of Americans who received notice that their credit card APR was rising, for no reason other than they can. In my case, it's doubling, from 7.24 % to 14.24%. I know some people would be happy with 14%, but I'm used to low rates on all my cards. On a personal level I'm outraged, as I've had this card for years and I'm never late with a payment. As a consultant, I'm baffled at this business model.

This card is issued by Chase, and like many banks, Chase has it's share of problems. Unfortunately, they think the way to solve their problems is on the back of loyal customers. I saw a web headline the other day that said "Banks are Declaring War...on You." Sadly that appears true.

Why not use this economic crisis as an opportunity to change strategy, and communicate a message to customers and consumers that we'll find a way to weather this crisis, but not at customer expense? Banks are perceived as greedy and evil these days, so why add evidence to the perception by punishing loyal customers? Why not present Chase as a bank that will innovate and improve itself and find other ways to cut costs and increase revenue?

But Chase won't. It's a dinosaur and unwilling to shed its arrogant behavior anytime soon. I called Chase and let them know my response, which is to shred my Chase card and never use it again. More people should do the same.

Watch for signs and make your move (in business, that is).

The economy is going to recover. When, I don't know, nobody does. But it will recover. It always does. One big question is what it will look like when that happens. I think it's essential for those who fret about the economy to look at small signs of change. Not in the usual way, not by looking at the usual indicators like the Dow or consumer spending reports and the like. I mean take notice of small changes or tweaks in the nature of how business is operating in the turmoil of today.

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article the other day describing how while companies are laying off large numbers of employees, they are also hiring at the same time. But who they're hiring and for what skills is what's different. In the struggle to survive, businesses are changing and adapting as they try to navigate their way to a profitable future. So rather than hire for the same skill sets for the same jobs in the same way, new employees are brought on for positions that didn't exist before or have changed job descriptions in adaptive ways.

Every business in America should be doing this. We don't know how radical or how nuanced the changes in the economy will turn out to be, but smart companies will watch carefully and make these adaptive changes along the way. Those that do will be in a better position to thrive once we pull out of this. In fact, they may well begin to thrive now! Why not? What better time to innovate and experiment? Hunkering down will leave you where you were before this whole mess began. What's the point of that? Crisis brings opportunity for those willing to step up, and they will see success first.

After my small rant on the administration's meddling with the Chrysler's marketing budget, along comes the state of Washington with its own form of a bailout. In trying to emulate the Washington D.C. mindset, Washington state has decided to give its newspapers a 40% cut in business taxes to help them stay alive and print another day. One of the papers has already stopped publication and changed to an Internet-only format. Other newspapers around the country have struggled with low subscriptions and falling ad revenue as people look for news in other ways and without the perceived biases plainly evident in many of the nation's largest papers.

If newspapers are failing, what should we do first? Well, I think we should look at the leadership of the industry, its collective attitude and mindset, and the leadership of individual papers. If there was ever a case study of failed leadership in a single industry, this is at or near the top (along with the automakers and airlines). I have always loved newspapers since I was a kid, and still find great satisfaction in holding a paper in my hands and reading every section. However, I no longer subscribe to any paper and get all my news online from several newspaper Internet editions and online news sources. I would love to see the newspaper industry succeed, but on their own merits and not because the federal government subsidizes them.

Technologies come and go according to the marketplace and the vision and leadership of particular companies. I love horses, but I'm glad the horse and buggy industry didn't get bailed out. The horseless carriage won out and we have been the better for it as a nation (can't argue that, all environmental arguments aside). Newspapers have done a terrible job of adapting to market needs and trends, and their editorial policies are a national joke (I loved one comment from a reader of the Seattle Times...the online edition... about the new tax break policy: "Why don't they create one paper and call it Pravda?").

Really, what do we want? Do we want Washington or state governments to step in and try to save certain industries? Or do we allow the market, that is, you and me, decide who wins and loses according to what we're looking for?

Detroit vs. Washington

Here's a headline that shocked me: Obama Halves Chrysler's Planned Marketing Budget. That's the president of the United States telling an American automaker how much it can spend on advertising. This is what we can expect when quasi-nationalization occurs in private industry. Accept bailout money and lose operating control, even in marketing. I have to say that I hate this concept and it worries me to see this happen. Our economy is built on the principles of free enterprise and you (in theory) rise or fall according to your merit and the marketplace. Unless the federal government steps in and takes control as a return for the cash to keep the doors open. If you thought Cerberus couldn't run Chrysler, wait 'till you see the government try!

A while ago the head of Russia was visiting the US and noticed some highly critical remarks published in a local paper about his host, the American president. He asked our president why he didn't simply fire the newspaper editor. The response: I can't do that; we don't do things that way in the United States." Well, look at what's happening now. Government steps in with money, and suddenly executives are fired and marketing budgets are cut. Is this what we really want?

Great customer service should be the norm, right?

I had a couple of interesting customer experiences this past week that caused me to reflect on the relationship between leadership and customer service, and marketing, too. First with a bank, then with a major retailer.

My bank is US Bank and I'm generally pleased with them. I'm especially pleased they didn't get involved with making bad loans in the sub-prime market. They're ranked as one of the strongest banks in America right now. I used my local branch outside Salt Lake City largely because the tellers were friendly and polite, and Karen, the Customer Service Manager was simply terrific. A new branch manager was brought in with no evidence of leadership skills and promptly micromanaged and browbeat the tellers, all of them, into leaving. Karen requested a transfer to another branch as fast as she could. Branch customers were furious and a number of them left. That included me as new tellers were poorly trained and turnover seemed high. I followed Karen to her new branch because I knew what service would be like wherever she went and I was right. I gladly drive 15 minutes instead of five for that. I visited my old branch last week for a quick deposit and the teller didn't greet me, never smiled, and was generally unpleasant. Leadership shows, one way or the other.

Now for Sears. Here is a retailer that has struggled mightily to stay alive and has made some truly awful business decisions along the way. I still shake my head over the K-Mart merger, and they've done nothing with the acquisition of Land's End except to milk it for cash. But they still make pretty good tools and power equipment, and the Craftsman guarantee is still in effect. I know because I bought a new Craftsman lawnmower a week ago, and it broke not 30 minutes into using it for the first time. After a round of mild cussing, I drove it back to Sears with retribution on my mind. To my surprise, there were no questions, just apologies and a brand new mower in my car. Craftsman equipment has always had an unconditional guarantee and I've known people to take screwdrivers back that broke after having obviously used them as chisels and received a replacement on the spot. I left completely satisfied.

In Sears's case, their leadership team has made some crazy business decisions but were either smart enough or lucky enough to keep their Craftsman guarantee in effect. My defective mower was an anomaly and customer service was great. Why don't they advertise that more? Shout it from the rooftops and get your customers back! OK, it may take more than that, but it would be something. For US Bank, there's a middle management problem which is a senior management problem since they're not paying attention to dumb decisions made by middle management (and around it goes).

In this economy it's imperative to get your business house in order, change and improve what you do and stay (or get) customer-focused. Consumers have so many choices; why should they choose you? Give them, give us, a reason. Please!

Olympic Leadership Lessons

The last job I had right before going out on my own was also one of the best: managing the leadership and customer service training for the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Olympics. Like millions of people, I loved the Olympics and had watched both the Summer and Winter Games all my life. The chance to actually be part of their production was irresistible, even though we all knew it was a temporary job. But how often does such an opportunity come around? It was rewarding to know you were part of something really significant and meaningful, and it was also the most stressful work I've ever done.

It's hard to imagine the sheer size and scope of staging the Olympic Games. The paid part of the Games, the organizing committee, grew from a handful of people to around 5500 in about six years. On top of that we recruited over 25,000 volunteers. My job was to get all 30,000 people through three sessions of customer service training over two years, and some 5000 or so through leadership training. Yes, I had help! Terrific help, with a small training staff of six people and 26 part-time trainers. We wrote all the training material, designed and produced manuals, and tracked the attendance of all 30,000 + people in nine training locations. Deadlines cannot be moved with the Olympics, and there were were many seven-day work weeks and a few of my colleagues slept in the office to meet those deadlines.

On more than a few occasions tensions ran high in my department (and others), tempers flared and words were exchanged. Not nice ones. There were those who wanted to quit at times, but didn't. One of the reasons was we believed in what we were doing. The mission of the the Salt Lake Organizing Committee and volunteers was "To Be The Best Games Workforce Ever." We really believed that. I recently found a copy of the SLOC guiding principles:

• Teamwork
• Passion and Pride
• Communication
• Integrity
• Fun and Celebration

Each principle had several behavioral bullets underneath, and they meant something to us. Why did we believe so strongly in our mission and values? Yes, it was the Olympics, after all! But like any organization, we had our issues and like I said earlier, stress and tension levels were sometimes off the chart. A primary factor was leadership. Our CEO set a clear vision and communicated it to us constantly, from whole-company rallies to impromptu meetings in the hallway. We responded to his leadership and internalized the guiding principles. That kept us going through the hard times, which also included the tragedy of 9/11. You might have heard of him: Mitt Romney.

Leadership makes all the difference in the success or failure of any organization. If you are a leader, from CEO down to supervisor, do you give your people a reason to believe? Do you tell them? How often? Can they see and hear you out there in front? Too many leaders post the mission, vision and values and forget to communicate them. That sends a message to your people of "The boss doesn't care so why should I?" Build a culture that strengthens belief in what you do and then watch your people perform. We had it in the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and the result was the IOC chairman declaring the Salt Lake Games to be the best-run in modern Olympic history. How about a gold medal performance from your organization?

Fiat + Chrysler = ?

I've been reading with great interest the recent talk about a potential merger of Chrysler and Fiat. So many thoughts are crossing my mind and they include skepticism, disbelief, serious concern over heavy-handed White House influence, and laughter...can't help that. The laughter will be familiar to anyone old enough to remember the Fiats of our youth. Fun, inexpensive roadsters were Fiat's main export to the US, and fun they were. They were also notoriously unreliable, breaking down on a regular basis, as much or more than my beloved British sports cars (and they were in constant maintenance mode). So for us, we can't help but wonder at the spectacle of two of the most unreliable brands in the automotive world actually merging.

However, being a car guy from way back, I'm aware that Fiat makes pretty good cars these days! And they're very popular across Europe. So I can get past that. What I can't can't past is the potential for disaster in merging two disparate corporate cultures. Fiat has a fascinating and successful history of making popular cars and even tanks and planes back during the WW 2 era. More recently they have acquired Alfa Romeo and even Maserati, with the latter enjoying great success under Fiat control. Fiat's ownership and board have been dominated by family members even today. This is a quintessential European and notably Italian company.

Chrysler has a history of greatness, but I emphasize history, as in a long time ago. Who didn't love the great Chrysler muscle cars from the 60s and early 70s? But since then their only distinction has been the development of the minivan, which was a huge success, but now other companies have eclipsed Chrysler in sales and quality in their iconic product. Sales of other Chrysler cars plummeted as well. Plymouth is gone and Dodge struggles.

Chrysler is now owned by Cerberus, a private equity group, and a Cerberus principle is now CEO. That's Robert Nardelli, whose record of running Home Depot is somewhat less than stellar. Cerberus is not interested in cars per se, only in turning a profit from their takeover of Chrysler. Nothing wrong with profit! But they don't know the industry and I suspect they don't really care. And their cars still suffer from poor quality and high repair costs compared to other US auto manufacturers. Chrysler would gain access to European markets and Fiat to ours, but will Europeans buy low-quality Chrysler products? Fiat's best car is the Fiat 500, a terrific small car that some say would be competition to the Mini Cooper. But Americans still love larger cars so banking it all on small cars seems unwise, even if gas prices rise again.

So we have two disparate companies and cultures, and beyond the superficial and I think overly-optimistic cross-marketing business model, I see a culture clash reminiscent of another failed merger. As others have pointed out, anyone remember Daimler-Chrysler? Are the lessons of history being ignored again? I'd love to see Fiat in the US again, but not this way.

What do we want from our leaders?

I've always liked Business Week, and one of my favorite pieces every month is the article entitled The Welchway, co-written by Jack and Suzy Welch. In the March 2 edition they describe how they view the Obama administration's having broken three cardinal rules of leadership, and regardless of one's politics, their points on leadership are worth reading. I'll do a quick review here.

"First, business leaders gain nothing by showing uncertainty and indecision." This is so basic as to often be forgotten, and for some reason these days there's seen a virtue in showing one's feelings regardless of position or circumstance. As the Welches point out, having these feelings is normal, and I might add in today's business environment to be expected, but you don't broadcast your uncertainties, fears and doubts. Not if you're a leader or aspire to leadership. Employees, and citizens too, look to leadership for confidence that they themselves might not have. If I see my boss or my president equivocating or telling me what a mess everything is and wasting time pointing fingers, that's not leadership.

"Second, business leaders undermine success by talking about the risk of failure." This builds on the issue of confidence. Business and political leaders all know that strategies carry risk, and that some may well fail. And so do the rest of us. But once more, we look to leadership to hold the torch high and give a reason to believe and follow. Absent that, again, I'll look somewhere else.

"Finally, business leaders cannot indulge bureaucratic data dumpers." The Welches bemoan managers who drown themselves in statistics, charts and PowerPoint slides (cheer!) and become paralyzed to the point of becoming unable to make a decision. And then they take the same paralyzing information and dump it into the boss's lap with no analysis or action steps. What help is that to leaders? None at all, and it is in fact destructive to effectiveness.

Don't we want our leaders, whether it be our CEO or our President, to inspire us and build confidence in the future with them at the helm? I know I do. I've worked for companies and had bosses that haven't done this and it rippled through the ranks like a virus. It's discouraging and deadly. I want the same from my president as the Welches write about. I want to hear confidence in our country, its people and its institutions. And that includes the creators of wealth and the drivers of the economy.

Who's to blame here?

I'm confident that most problems that companies face can be traced to their culture, as it's the culture that influences employee belief in their company which subsequently determines their behavior. And behavior, of course, determines results. I'm inclined to now issue an "except for" clause after reading the following blurb from the Workplace Law Network. Read this:

"Company culture will be at the centre of a court probe into the first corporate manslaughter prosecution, a top lawyer and leading union officer have warned at a recent British Safety Council (BSC) conference, which examined the responsibilities on directors to prevent injury and ill health to their workers and the consequences of failing to act or getting it wrong." (http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/18640)

Company culture so dysfunctional, so perverse, so dangerous that it leads to manslaughter? This will be a stretch, I suspect. Now I don't know what the details are yet, but this concerns me on a foundational level. Culture does indeed influence belief and behavior, and I believe most problems can be ascribed to the culture except for individuals who are disturbed, who are sociopaths or suffering from a major traumatic experience in their life. We've read the horrible accounts of workplace violence in many, too many companies, and as far as I remember there was never anything about the corporate culture that seemed to play even a marginal part. Some have been troubled businesses, some successful, and there seems to be no one industry that spawns such behavior (nope, no Going Postal jokes here). Even if a business has a culture with a command-and-control leadership, lousy performance management and poor communication, that does not translate into direct influence on violent behavior. And the threat to the directors who might "get it wrong" and are therefore culpable? Come on. I can think of a lot of areas in which directors screw up but holding them responsible for the violent actions of an individual is dangerously dumb.

Corporate culture explains a lot of things, but manslaughter in the workplace? Here's a thought: maybe there's something wrong with the individual committing the crime. Just a thought.

Improving focus can be done!

I have a terrific college student that I mentor who asked for some advice on staying focused when distractions threaten to take her off-course from her goals. These are no ordinary distractions. She's in South America for several months and has educational responsibilities among other things to accomplish. Before leaving she had worked hard to determine a set of what she felt were achievable goals in several areas of her life and was making real progress. We have accountability meetings or phone calls every week, until now anyway, as we've switched to emails. So this is for her, and for anyone who wants a few tips on how to stay focused on accomplishing tasks.

First off, let's deal with the question of whether the problem is of organic origin, such as ADD. I've seen adults with ADD who are functionally disorganized, unstructured and unfocused, and for whom medications (prescribed medications) have been miraculous. If you suspect you suffer from this or something related, see a doctor. Get tested and get treated if that's the issue.

If, however, you're one whose problem is more behavioral, then there are behavioral and cognitive techniques to improve. People who have trouble focusing often have challenges in three areas: planning, prioritizing and following through. Prioritizing tasks isn't hard if you're honest with yourself. What simply must be done? What would be good to get done? What would be a bonus? I'm simplifying things, of course, but not by much. One tip in prioritizing is to examine the purpose. For each task, ask why do this? What's the reason, the point here? Focus your purpose, get some clarity and you can focus your time. Planning also means scheduling, a great habit to develop and one usually lacking by those who can't focus well. I advocate more than a to-do list; write them in the order you want to address each one, and if you really have trouble sticking to it add a time frame to each (8-9:00 AM for this, 2-3:00 PM for that). Then decide you will not, cannot move to another task until you have spent the requisite time on the one you have begun. By the way, it's easier to do this when you're clear on the purpose for each task. Follow-through is a common problem for those who have trouble focusing. One thing I hear all the time is "I'm great at getting a task/project/job started, but then I get distracted and I never finish." If you follow the first suggestions here, then this often takes care of itself. Once you know why you're doing something and have a sense of purpose, then prioritize and schedule your time, internal motivation often kicks in to help you both start and complete a task.

Distractions are an issue, though. Take the initiative to prevent them from occurring if you can, or decide what you'll do before it happens if you can't. So that might mean turning off your cell phone while you write that report, or making the conscious decision to check email twice a day at certain times, or placing a object on your desk that you've told people if they see it out, you're not to be disturbed. A friend of mine has a technique for politely getting rid of office visitors: he stands up and walks toward the door, still talking, and his visitor automatically does the same and leaves. Painless and effective.

Take the time to understand your particular challenges and give these ideas a try. By the way, that takes a little focus by itself. You might need to follow these steps just to get started! Is it important to you (the purpose)? Is it a priority? How much so? When will you do it? What day? What time and for how long? And how will you handle possible distractions? And you're on your way.

I'm aware there are whole books written on focusing, managing time and priorities and so on, and maybe you want to read some for more ideas. But don't let a system take over your life! Develop the good habits that allow you control over your life, stay focused, be productive and happy.

But what about motivational speakers?

Let me add to my post on motivation by addressing a topic that comes up as a "what about?"response to my thinking about motivation in general. The topic is the motivational speaker.

This has become an actual category in public speaking, and for some time now. But shouldn't every speaker be a "motivational speaker" regardless of the topic? Whether I listen to a speech on leadership or a sermon at church I want to come away with a new motivation (or inspiration) to take some positive action. "Motivational speakers" tend to give advice on personal development and how to change one's life. That's great. I do that too when asked. But if I give a speech on developing lasting customer relationships or a workshop on team building, I want to be a "motivational speaker" there, too! I want to inspire people to do something different and better in whatever I present.

I need to reiterate the difference between motivation and inspiration. Motivation is internal and intrinsic, and a motivational speaker cannot motivate me; I can only motivate myself as inspired to do by the speaker. Or not. Consider this very common phenomenon: a person who listens diligently to motivational speakers, both in person and on CDs, but nothing changes in his or her life. This happens all the time. A person comes away feeling wonderfully inspired to do whatever motivated her to listen in the first place. See the difference? Her motivation, her decision to listen, was internal. It came from within. What she hears is inspiring and she wants to implement the plan, the suggestions, the "10 Steps" or whatever it was. But something prevents her from getting started. And so she listens to a different speaker or buys a new set of CDs, and around it goes.

Is it the fault of the motivational speaker that this woman stays the same and doesn't significantly improve her life? Was the speaker not motivational enough? Maybe he's just not a good motivational speaker. Maybe, in one sense. There are plenty of mediocre speakers out there! But the speaker's role is to inspire, to plant the seeds of motivation that must develop within the listener. What happens after that is up to the listener. As a side note, if motivation is there, but follow-through is not, the answer is usually found either in a lack of accountability for taking the steps, a seeming inability to even begin, or a lack of confidence in ones's ability to do so. That's where a coach can help, and in fact that's where coaches are most helpful. I have addressed each one of those issues with my own coaching clients.

I like to listen to "motivational speakers," most of them, anyway, and I like the message they bring. It's inspiring and I hope I'm motivated enough to take action. But I want all the speakers I listen to to be motivational, that is, again, that through their message and delivery they inspire me to do things differently and make the improvements I need to make.

What exactly is motivation, anyway?

I answered a question today on LinkedIn in which someone asked about tricks to motivate people, and how to create and boost motivation. Have to admit I was a little dismayed with the question itself, as it reflects a too-common mindset that motivation is something we do to people. I keep wondering how long this idea will continue?

Here is a little of what I wrote:

I take issue with a lot of what's written out there about motivating people. A lot of it is manipulative and designed to make it easy on the manager by using tricks and techniques better suited for rats in a maze than human beings. More like what you see in Dilbert cartoons. What managers forget or often purposely avoid is the significance of interpersonal behavior...their behavior...in motivating employees.

First of all, we don't motivate, we inspire. I really believe this. We may inspire motivation, and in fact we better! Motivation is intrinsic, and we can provide the environment that inspires and reinforces internal motivation, or just the opposite. It depends on what the manager does.Much has been made of the research that shows people quit their manager, not their company, and one contributer above alludes to that in suggesting that the manager-employee relationship is an essential component in motivation. I agree. It begins with the manager. Assuming you're the manager here, do you have the desire and the skills to develop relationships with your people? If not, forget about their motivation.

Develop a vision for your employees, whether it's an entire company, a division or even a work group. Communicate it constantly. Take the time to understand individual work style and discover what motivates them in general. This requires close observation and careful listening, two of a manager's most-needed skills. Know precisely what work product is required and communicate that. Decide the type of environment you want and make that clear. Find out what type of recognition creates a positive work response and follow-through religiously. Consistency in these areas is essential, as is your commitment to walking your own talk.

These are steps in building belief in your people, both you in them and them in you. This will develop internal motivation to perform, i.e., their behavior will follow their belief. What you've done now is develop a culture that inspires people to accomplishment. The motivation comes from within because they want to achieve. I'm convinced this is applicable in any work situation and any economic condition. I would argue that in today's economy it's more important than ever. No tricks involved.

Well, that's actually a lot of what I said, not a little. But I wanted to post this in both places because I feel strongly we need to change our perspective on motivation in general and what it means to motivate someone else. On a personal level, I look for inspiration to motivate me to certain actions. Motivation must come from within, however, inspiration is external and can come from other people, certain experiences we have, books we read or even music we listen to. We can be a source of inspiration to others, and whether it's as a manager, as a friend or as a parent, I think it's something to which we should all aspire.

Learn, lift and live.

A friend and colleague was reading my biographical sketch the other day as I edited material for my soon-to-be-updated website. She thought I should translate a Latin phrase I included that explains something of my personal philosophy: mens sana in corpore sano. She's right, and here is the translation: a sound mind in a sound body. It's something I've tried to live by for many years, and the older I get the more valuable I believe the saying to be.

A sound mind is one that remains inquisitive and open to new information, that is prepared and grounded with sound values to ensure good judgment. It means listening to varied viewpoints and developing discernment for valid evaluation. It includes reading from a variety of sources, newspapers to novels, and conversing with other people without fear of contrary opinions being expressed. It's all about the input; what we allow to enter our minds, and the filters of evaluation we develop over time to make sense of it all. A sound body means we treat our bodies with the respect they deserve, taking care of this God-given gift in a variety of ways. Like with the mind, that means we watch the input. Excess food and drink cause physical problems of many kinds. Witness the obesity epidemic we have in the US today and its attendant issues like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and circulatory problems. Excessive alcohol has been the cause of millions of deaths from drunk driving, in addition to liver disease and a host of other concerns. Soft drinks aren't off the hook here with their exorbitant amounts of sugar! But a sound body also means output, as in the output of energy, and that means movement. Running, walking, biking, hiking, and my personal favorite, weight training. I've lifted weights since high school (yes, a very long time ago) and still go to the gym four days a week. My days of 400 lb. squats are over, but 225 is still easy and my knees have never been stronger. I do a variety of cardio exercises and I have goals for this part of my life as with any other.

Where do you find the time, I'm often asked. I don't find it, I make it, just like we all make time for the things we do every day. A bonus for me is the mental acuity benefit, and my family will attest to the fact that my mood stays more positive when I'm consistent in my workouts. And I rarely need any help moving heavy things around the house. Downside? You've probably guessed who gets called when there's something big and heavy to move in someone else's house. That's OK.

You may have variations on what it means to have a sound mind in a sound body. There's no one or best meaning, but what matters is believing this to be important, essential even, and then taking action. The results are gratifying, and the process itself is immensely satisfying as you gain new appreciation for life and all it can be, indeed, all it should be.

Radio station leadership lesson.

You don't have to go very far to find lessons in leadership. Sometimes it's right in your own community. That doesn't lessen the impact of the lesson, however. Here's what I experienced recently.

We're fortunate to have three public radio stations here in Salt Lake City, two that are very similar with a mix of NPR and locally produced shows, the other a classical music station. Of the two NPR stations, I prefer one, KUER, for a variety of reasons. Their local programming is excellent and they're politically fairly neutral, quite unlike the other, KCPW (it's hard enough to keep my personal filters on during the NPR pieces, let alone the local talk). I confess that like many listeners, I hadn't become a member of KUER, despite the many fundraising drives I'd listened to over the years. So when one of my kid's cars became too expensive to repair, I decided to donate it to KUER through their vehicle donation program. The cars are sold at auction and the station gets whatever the final bid price is, minus a nominal fee to the agency who runs the donation process. Even if it was only $500, that would cover many years of not becoming a member. Better yet, I thought, it might even count towards a current membership. So I called the station to find out. That's when the lesson in leadership, empowerment and customer service began, and it wasn't pretty.

I spoke with two people in the development office, both of whom thanked me for what I was doing and agreed, yes indeed, a car donation would also get me a membership for one year. All I had to do was wait for the car to be sold, wait for a confimation letter to arrive to me and call back. Well, great, I thought. This would be a real win-win. The letter arrived about a month later and I was right about the sale price at auction: $500. I was excited to call KUER and follow up on their instructions. This time when I called, the station manager answered the phone. Unusual, I thought, but I was happy to tell him what I had done and that I was looking forward to being a member finally as a result of my car donation. Not so fast, came his reply. Donating a car does not entitle one to a station membership at KUER, he told me. I explained that his own development office thought it did, so why the discrepency? He went on to tell me that the development people were wrong and should not have agreed to give me a membership simply because I donated a car (and unlike them, he did not thank me). What's more, he would not honor their promise. I told him that KUER just received $500 from me and that a year's membership was only $40, so why not honor the word of his own people? And why don't they know their own station's policy?

This small-minded station manager was willing to risk losing the goodwill and support of a listener to rigidly maintain a policy (unknown to his own development office!) guaranteed to alienate me. Customer service 101, anyone? He has not empowered his people to make decisions on behalf of members or potential members. Leadership 101, anyone, again? As you might imagine, the odds of any future financial support from me to KUER are nill. And like so many customer service studies show over and over, unhappy customers like me will repeat their stories to others. Just as I'm doing here.

A $500 donation not worth a $40 membership? Not honoring the word of his own staff? This is not the proverbial rocket science here. How many leadership and customer service books, and articles are written, seminars, speeches and workshops attended, designed to teach the most elementary of lessons to lead an organization and create loyal customers? How about even common sense, which is too often not commonly applied? Lest you conclude this is more typical of nonprofits like KUER than in the private sector, think for a moment if you don't have a similar story to tell from a for-profit business. Thought so.