How Leaders Take Risks - Part I

As mentioned in yesterday's blog, Professor Kathleen Reardon, from the University of Southern California, interviewed more than 200 leaders who acted courageously. She discovered that the heart of courage in organizations is risk calculation. Professor Reardon's studies show that individuals who become extraordinary business leaders make bold moves that have been thought through carefully. They take calculated risks by implementing a six-step decision-making methodology described below. This blog will share specific examples on the first three steps.

1. Clarify Goals.

2. Evaluate Goal Importance.

3. Build Support.

4. Weigh the Risks and Benefits.

5. Select the Right Time.

6. Develop Contingency Plans.

1. Clarify Goals. When you're considering a risky situation, the first questions you should ask yourself are: What do I hope to achieve realistically? What will success in this scenario look like? How will it help others and me?

I was recently coaching an executive who was distraught that one of his colleagues, Greg might be fired. He felt that the CEO was acting on false information. My coaching client was considering talking to the CEO about the situation. When I asked him what success would look like and how it would serve others, he began to realize he needed to hear from his colleagues and do a little soul searching before he decided what to do. In a follow-up conversation, he told me that his colleagues had information about Greg’s performance that he did not have. Furthermore, he revealed that a little soul searching confirmed that rushing in to rescue others had been a pattern all his life, probably due to alcoholism in his family. He realized that although “saving” others was perceived as altruistic, he knew that it was at times, self-serving and at times, dysfunctional.

2. Evaluate Goal Importance. Do you know people who always speak up in opposition, regardless of the issue? They are the Chicken Little's of the world, running around telling us that the sky is falling all the time. These individuals do not consider the value of the goal. How important is it? If nothing is done or said, who might be hurt?

Professor Reardon points out that it is often helpful to assign importance at three levels. On the lowest level are issues that you don't feel strongly about, although you may have a preference regarding the outcome. On the second level are issues that you feel strongly about, but don't involve core values. The third level she calls “spear-in-the-sand” issues because you feel strongly about them and they involve values worth fighting for.

3. Build Support. Hollywood loves to embrace the individual hero. Spiderman, Superman, Ironman, and Wonderwoman are all here to save the day. But in organizations, successful risk-taking requires support. When I was conducting research at UCSD medical center in the early 80s, we used a method for calculating blood volumes of the heart that was "validated" at UCSD by one of our cardiology colleagues. One night in the laboratory, I observed great variation in blood volumes from the same patient. Over the next several weeks, I confirmed my initial observations -- that technique for calculating blood volumes, "validated" by researchers at UCSD, did not work. Before presenting this data to the director of our lab, I shared the information with a few of my trusted colleagues in one-on-one confidential conversations. I asked their opinion regarding the data, our laboratory techniques, and biological variability. By the end of these conversations, it was clear to me that the technique did not work and that these colleagues supported my conclusions. I then took the data to my boss, who then arranged for us to present the data in front of the entire cardiology department. The presentation went well because I minimized my risk - the risk of contradicting our own cardiologists - by building support. We then published our findings that refuted the earlier work. (2) What type of support do you need before you take risks?

These are the first three keys commanding leaders take when calculating risks. Which ones do you need to work on?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Kathleen Reardon; Courage as a Skill, Harvard Business Review, January 2007, 58 -- 64.

2. David G. Jensen and colleagues; Individual Variability of Radionuclide Ventriculograpy In Stable Coronary Artery Disease Patients over One Year, Cardiology, 71, 1984, 255 -- 265.

Leaders Use Six Steps to Execute with Passion and Courage

Greg was organized, likable, and communicated well. He was promoted to division manage after three years as a mid-level manager in finance. When I interviewed his managers, they indicated that they always knew what to do because Greg excelled at clarifying objectives and expectations. Team meetings ran like a Swiss watch. His managers told me that Greg included them in decision-making and that he delegated well. He also fostered an environment of creativity and openness to change.

As the economy worsened and the CEO demanded more productivity, Greg's weakness began to show. Three of his managers failed to deliver results. As their productivity slipped, complaints about poor leadership from their own front-line supervisors escalated. Craig finally counseled his three direct reports individually, but they didn’t improve because he did not hold them accountable for implementing an improvement plan, nor did he discipline them when their poor results continued. Conflicts soon erupted with employees in other divisions as Greg’s poor performers became unresponsive to demands from other teams. Yet he still failed to institute a progressive discipline program.

Six months later, Greg was fired. What do you think his major problem was? If you guessed that he lacked the essentials of commanding leader (see below), you get a gold star. In this blog, we will address the first - executing with passion and courage.

The Four Competencies of a Commanding Leader

I. Execute with Passion and Courage

II. Embrace Ambiguity and Paradox

III. Regulate the Emotions

IV. Choose Responsibly

What is to give light must endure burning.

Viktor Frankl

I. Execute with Passion and Courage

The heat is greatest at the tip of a rocket. When a leader chooses to be out in front, he or she will take heat. Consider the sales manager who refuses to sell out-dated products about to lose technical support, the whistle-blowing accountant who writes the memo about the "irregularities" she sees on the books, the executive who confronts her boss with difficult questions, the researcher who publishes a paper contradicting a peer's widely-praised findings, or the manager who holds his team members accountable for their performance (unlike Greg). These acts of everyday courage illustrate the first crucial competency of a commanding leader - executing with passion and courage. How strong are you in this area? How do you you grow this skill?

Professor Kathleen Reardon, from the University of Southern California, interviewed more than 200 leaders who acted courageously. (1) She discovered that the heart of courage in organizations is risk calculation. This is different from the courage we see when a firefighter rushes into a burning building or a neighbor jumps into a raging river to save a drowning child. Professor Reardon's studies show that individuals who become eXtraordinary business leaders make bold moves that have been thought through carefully. These commanding leaders take calculated risks by implementing the six-step decision-making methodology described below:

1. Clarify goals.

2. Evaluate goal importance.

3. Build support.

4. Weigh the risks and benefits.

5. Select the right time.

6. Develop contingency plans.

These are the six steps to strengthening your first competency of the commanding leadership style - executing with passion and courage. Which steps do you need to work on?

Keep stretching... boldly,

Dave

1. Kathleen Reardon; Courage as a Skill, Harvard Business Review, January 2007, 58 -- 64.

Leading 'Fireside Chats on Steroids'

Dear Mr. President,

It is only a week after your inauguration and the media has reverted to focusing on what is negative. Yet, negativity will not help our country get back on its feet. Here's what will:

President Washington ordered his leaders to read Thomas Paine's, Common Sense during the darkest hours of 1776 because he knew that “people move in the direction of the dominant images they place or let others place in their minds.” Mr. President, I believe that this is your biggest challenge and opportunity: to consistently and constantly place before the American people a positive vision of where we are going and the small steps we must all take to get there.

As you communicate your message, please do not mistake broadcasting for communication. We cannot solve today's problems with yesterday's thinking or methods. What is needed is a weekly "Fireside Chat on Steroids."

During this weekly half-hour discussion, cover the following agenda items:

1. Explain one aspect of a strategic priority and why it's important.

2. Present the progress that you, Congress, and other leaders are making.

3. Request specific actions (and sacrifices) we must all take to further the cause.

4. Provide an update on the previous week's discussion.

Because the focus is on discussion, I encourage you to use the technological wonders at your disposal (live texting, webinars, YouTube videos, instant polling…) to facilitate feedback and promote citizen involvement. Increasing involvement increase commitment.

President Washington understood that the job of a leader is to unleash the creative energy of the people in a given direction. By taking your case to the people and holding everyone accountable for progress, you will focus the tremendous energy of our people on our common cause.

Let me know if I can help,
Dave

PS How will you adapt the principles in this blog to lead your people?

http://davejensenonleadership.blogspot.com/

David G. Jensen

3518 Barry Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

How Leaders Do the Right Thing

Uncle Burt reached into his back pocket and pulled out his wallet. He fumbled for another five dollar bill and then slapped it on the bar. He directed his soft, raspy voice toward the bartender, "When you get a chance, get my nephew another beer."

As he settled back onto his seat, I blurted, "Burt, I got my draft card yesterday." The year was was 1973 and the Vietnam War was winding down, but the draft was alive and well.

"Well, what are you going to do?" The war-decorated Marine’s blue eyes stared at me.

"I don't want to go to Vietnam and die. Don't we have relatives in Sweden or Denmark?" So there, I said it to a man who was my second father, a former Marine and whose eldest son - cousin Dean - was also a Marine.

"You're not going to go to Sweden or Denmark, Dave."

"I'm not? Why not?" I really hadn't decided anything.

"Because," he put his muscular left arm around me, squeezed hard and smiled, "you're always going to do the right thing."

I wish I could tell you that Uncle Burt was right - that I've always done the right thing. But I haven't. I've tried to do the right thing, but I've made many mistakes. (I never had to make a decision about the Vietnam War, the war ended before my number was called.) Here are a three practical guidelines that philosophers from Socrates to Uncle Burt have used to help do the right thing.

1. The VIRTUE Approach
This traditional approach to ethics teaches us that a leader's decision should be consistent with specific virtues. These virtues enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character. A virtuous leader asks, "What kind of person will I become if I do this?" or "Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?" The research suggests that you and your team profit as you practice the virtues of honesty, integrity, equity, and humility.

2. The UTILITARIAN Approach
Employing the utilitarian approach to making ethical decisions means that your aim is to produce the greatest good and least harm for all those who are affected by your decision. This often includes weighing the impact of your decisions on the many stakeholders who often have conflicting interests, such as your customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Utilitarian leaders consider the consequences of decisions by asking, "How can this decision produce the greatest good and least harm."

3. The COMMON GOOD Approach
Similar to the utilitarian approach, the common good emphasizes the impact of decisions on the larger community. Philosopher Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative addresses this by stating: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law of nature." In other words, the common good approach invites leaders to ask, “If everybody here was compelled to do what I'm about to do, how would it affect the environment?”

These are three fundamental approaches to help you become a more ethical leader. Perhaps if more leaders applied them, the world economy would be in better shape. Which ones will be most useful to you?

Keep eXpanding... ethically,

Dave

The Cost of Lost Humility in a Leader

As millions suffer on Main Street, many leaders on Wall Street don’t seem to understand the meaning of humility. The former CEO of Merrill Lynch, John Thain, a Wall Street kingpin, resigned after it was reported that he recently spent $1 million to decorate his office and rushed to pay billions in executive payouts just days before his firm was bought out by Bank of America and bailed out on the backs of hard working taxpayers. (1) The opposite of humility is hubris (i.e., excessive pride or arrogance). I hereby crown Thain the king of hubris.

Contrary to Thain’s pathetic example, there is some evidence that corporate leaders are acting with greater humility. Take for example John Edwardson, CEO of CDW, a $5 billion company that sells to IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and other computer manufacturers. Edwardson demonstrates his humility by not taking himself seriously. He has made regular bets that the company couldn't reach certain goals. When it did, he responded by shaving his head or growing mutton chop sideburns. (2) Humility also translated into visibility and availability. The conspicuous corner office with the foreboding door gave way to a large picture window. Employees can now look in and watch him work.

Former UPS CEO, Mike Eskew captured the spirit of a leader's humility when he pointed out that he was only one of 360,000 people who worked at UPS.

As I mentioned in my last blog, researcher Jim Collins defined a Level 5 leader as one who "builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will." (3)

Collins and his team of researchers found Level 5 leaders demonstrated personal humility in the following manner:

- A compelling modesty, shunning public adulation; never boastful.

- A quiet, calm determination; relying on inspired standards, not inspiring charisma, to motivate.

- Channels ambition into the company, not the self; sets up successes for even greater success.

- Spends more time looking out the window, not in the mirror, to apportion credit for the success of the company.

Humility is the ability to keep your accomplishments in perspective. It must be hard to do if your perched in an office on the 100th floor, above Wall Street. Let us pray for them. As Pastor Rick Warren says, "humility is not thinking less of yourself; it is thinking of yourself less."

Keep eXpanding (but don't inflate),

Dave

1. http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/01/22/2009-01-22_former_merrill_lynch_ceo_john_thain_resi.html

2. Justin Martin; Rise of the New Breed: The Age of the Imperial CEO Is Waning. In Its Place, a Crop of New CEOs -- Humble, Team Building, Highly Competitive -- Are Rising, Chief Executive, August 1, 2003.

3. Jim Collins; Good to Great, HarperCollins, New York, NY, 2001, page 20

The Humble Leader - Wimp or Winner?

George Harding, a renowned patent attorney, had been hired by the John Manny Company of Rockford, Illinois to defend its reaping machine against a patent infringement charge. Harding thought it best to hire a local lawyer who understood the Chicago judge who would be trying the case. He picked a young, ambitious, Springfield lawyer named Abraham Lincoln. It was a poor choice.

Lincoln was delighted to accept the work in the summer of 1855. He was paid a retainer and promised a substantial fee when the work was done, and excited to have the opportunity to practice law against well-trained, highly educated East Coast lawyers.

Within weeks of hiring Lincoln, Harding received word that the case had been transferred from Chicago to Cincinnati. This allowed Harding to team up with the lawyer he had wanted all along -- Edwin Stanton. The problem was nobody told Lincoln, who continued developing his case throughout the summer.

Lincoln learned about the change in venue, and arrived in Cincinnati in late September, with his lengthy brief in his lanky hands. When he met Harding and Stanton as they left the court, Stanton pulled Harding aside and whispered, "Why did you bring that long-armed ape here... He does not know anything and can do no good." Stanton and Harding turned away and walked on down the court hall.

Over the next several days, Stanton made it perfectly clear that Lincoln was a poor choice and was to remove himself from the case, which Lincoln did. Nevertheless, he remained in Cincinnati to hear the case. Although Lincoln stayed and ate at the same hotel as Stanton and Harding, they never asked him to join them for a single meal or to accompany them to or from court.

As he prepared to leave Cincinnati, despite suffering what many would consider a supreme insult at the hands of Harding and Stanton, Lincoln told one of John Manny's partners that he was so impressed by the lawyers’ sophisticated arguments and thorough preparation, that he was going back to Illinois to really “study law.”

How would you have responded to such egregious treatment? The next encounter Lincoln had with Stanton, six years following the trial, President Lincoln offered Edwin Stanton the cabinet post of secretary of war.

Lincoln's expansive humility helped him achieve extraordinary results. Author Doris Kearns Goodwin points out that every member of Lincoln's administration was better known, better educated, and more experienced than he was. Lincoln placed all three of his rivals for the 1860 presidential Republican nomination in his cabinet. (1) Are you humble enough to surround yourself with superior people?

In his groundbreaking book Good to Great, author Jim Collins points out that only 11 CEOs of the 1,435 companies he studied possessed what he calls “Level 5 Leadership.” A Level 5 leader is one who "builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will." (2) Humility is defined as "the modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc.” Humility helps leaders direct their ego away from the “me” towards the greater cause of the "we."

Humble leaders, like Abraham Lincoln, are winners because they subjugate their ego for the good of the team. How about you?

Keep eXpanding... humbly,

Dave

1. Doris Kearns Goodwin; Team of Rivals - The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, 2005.

2. Jim Collins; Good to Great, HarperCollins, New York, NY, 2001 page 20.

Eight Ways Leaders Increase Process Fairness and Cuts Costs

Consider two companies experiencing layoffs:

A. Company “A” provides a safety net for laid-off workers that includes a generous severance package, extensive outplacement counseling, and continuing health insurance for a year. On the other hand, senior management never fully explains the rationale behind the layoffs or the process used to eliminate jobs.

B. Company "B” does not spend nearly as much money providing a safety net for its laid-off workers. However, senior management explains their strategic reasons for the layoffs on many occasions prior to implementation. Managers at all levels make themselves available to answer questions and share their concern for all those affected by the layoffs. Management also works closely with Human Resources throughout the process.

Nine months later, Company A is mired in numerous wrongful termination suits and another round of layoffs due to low productivity. NONE of the laid-off employees at Company B file a wrongful termination lawsuit and performance is better than it was prior to the layoffs.

What made the difference between these two companies? Although Company B did not spend as much money on the severance package as Company A, Company B invested heavily in process equity. Equity is defined as "the quality of being fair or impartial.” The employees in Company B felt they had been treated fairly, that there was equity in the layoff process. Professor Joes Brockner points out that when leaders practice process equity, often called “process fairness,” employees support new strategies, promote innovation, and boost the bottom line. (1) When process fairness is not practiced, companies pay the high cost of low ethics.

Professor Brockner cites a study of nearly 1,000 people that found only 1% of laid-off employees who felt that they were treated with a high degree of process fairness filed a wrongful termination lawsuit versus 17% of those who believed they were treated with a low degree of process fairness. The researchers calculated the cost savings of practicing process fairness as $1.28 million for every 100 employees. In addition to keeping companies out of legal hot water, paying attention to equity process in decision-making has also been shown to cut down on employee theft and medical malpractice suits. People and patients don’t retaliate because they receive poor treatment; they lash out because they don’t believe that they receive explanations about the process.

To increase equity in your team, it is important to address the three components of process fairness:

• Input fairness. How much input do employees feel they have in decision-making? Do their opinions count?
• Decision fairness. Are decisions based on accurate and unbiased information? Is adequate notice given? Is the process transparent? Are decisions consistent with espoused values and previous decisions?
• Implementation fairness. Does management explain why a decision was made? Do they treat employees respectfully by listening actively and empathetically?

Whenever you are implementing a major decision or change, you can increase process fairness by addressing all three of the components listed above and adapting the five tactics described below:

1. Involve employees early in the process. Harvard Business School Professor Michael Beer recommends the interview technique. Select a group of well-respected managers and ask them to interview a large number of employees from different parts of the company to learn about the pluses, minuses, and consequences of implementing the decision. Increasing involvement increases commitment.

2. Show the data. Show the employees the data used to make a decision. The more transparent the process the more buy-in it receives.

3. Explain the why behind the what. Let employees know why the decision was made and what other alternatives were considered.

4. Practice two-way communication. I once consulted with the company where the CEO often stated that “anything worth communicating is worth over communicating." He confused broadcasting with communication. He had no mechanism to detect the response to the signals he sent. His major change initiative failed miserably. Feedback keeps you on track because it allows for course correction. Find multiple channels to listen to the people during the change.

5. Warn and educate leaders. Leaders who deliver difficult news must be warned about the negative emotions that they will experience internally and from employees. Studies show that educating leaders about process equity benefits both the leaders and employees.

What will you do to increase your fairness?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Joel Brockner; Why It's So Hard to Be Fair, Harvard Business Review, March 2006, 122 – 129.

How Integrity Pays Leaders

An insurance company executive once told me that he knew his executive team had integrity because they talked about issues in meetings the same way they talked about those issues at the bar at night. Socrates would have agreed. He defined integrity 2,500 years ago as, "May the inner and outer man be one." How much integrity do you and your team have? Does it pay?

Everybody talks about how important integrity is, but Professor Tony Simons from Cornell University has actually measured the impact of integrity on the bottom line. (1) He and his colleagues surveyed more than 6,500 employees at 76 hotels to assess the consistency, or lack thereof, between what a leader said and what they did. Thy evaluated integrity by asking questions such as "My manager delivers on promises" and "My manager practices what he preaches." They then correlated the employee responses with the hotels’ satisfaction surveys, personnel records, and financial records.

The impact of integrity on profits was astounding! An improvement of a mere .125 in the hotel’s score (1/8^th on a five-point scale) increased the hotel’s profitability by 2.5% of revenues. This translated to a profit increase of more than $250,000 per year per hotel. Walking the talk pays!

The researchers pointed out that although integrity is a simple concept, maintaining it is quite difficult. Here's six reasons why:

• Sticky Labels. It takes a long time to earn the reputation as a “straight shooter,” but one misstatement to become labeled a “hypocrite."
• Conflicting Stakeholders. Leaders must constantly manage the competing and often contradictory demands made by numerous stakeholders. This can create the perception of inconsistency. For example, you might be working with your front-line supervisors to improve quality, while at the same time discussing staff reductions with your boss in order to meet financial objectives. When word gets out to the rank-and-file, all they see is low integrity.
• Change. When people are bobbing around in a sea of uncertainty, they look for stability. They cling to the security of the old, the tried and true, and the way we were. New policies, initiatives, management teams... are changes that feel like inconsistencies to employees.
• Management Fads. The average US company committed to 11.8 of the 25 current popular management tools and techniques. Unfortunately, the majority of these fads fade quickly. For example, 90% of the fortune 500 companies adopted quality circles when they were popular in the early 80’s. Within five years, 80% abandoned this initiative. Healthy skepticism quickly succumbs to employee cynicism when management dabbles with every unproven "flavor-of-the-month."
• Shifting Priorities. Adjusting to a complex, dynamic economic environment is critical to a leader’s success. This often requires adjusting goals and priorities. Unfortunately, if not communicated well, employees perceive these adjustments as evidence for lack of follow-through.
• Blind Spots. We seldom see our own inconsistencies. That's because we have a natural tendency to view our behaviors as consistent with espoused values. If there is an inconsistency, we rationalize in order to diminish it. This is the essence of the theory of cognitive dissonance, which states that people are motivated to reduce any disconnect between what they do and their attitudes, beliefs, and values.

What can you do to make sure you and your team profit from maintaining high integrity? Here are six tactics science says work:

1. Create a straight shooting team. Invite your team to help define what integrity means and looks like in your specific unit. Involve them in the establishment of integrity norms and methods to promote high standards.

2. Communicate. Use all forms of communication to inform your team that integrity must not be compromised to meet goals. Discuss difficult issues that could cause lapses in integrity in your meetings on a regular basis. Strive for transparency. Preach only what you practice.

3. Discipline everybody. Employees must see that senior executives, middle managers, and front-line employees are all held to the same high standards. Punish anyone who violates established standards.

4. Reward everybody. Applaud those who successfully meet a difficult challenges or crises with integrity. Discuss integrity issues during performance reviews. Use bonuses and pay raises to reinforce the importance of integrity.

5. Establish systems. Make it easy and anonymous for employees to report financial, legal, and ethical concerns. In addition, conduct an annual employee survey that consists of questions such as, "Is integrity compromised by business pressures?" and "Are the leaders verbal commitments to integrity reflected in action?"

6. Minimize change. Employees suffer from change fatigue when leaders introduce new policies, initiatives, or management fads. Although changes are necessary in today's competitive and global marketplace, too often they are neither strategic nor carefully thought through.

These are the common causes of low integrity and what to do about them. Which ones might payoff for you?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Tony Simons; The High Cost of Low Trust, Harvard Business Review, September 2002, 18 -- 19.

Is Leadership Honesty Really the Best Policy?

She had just been named president and CEO of a $300 million medical device manufacturer. The entire US sales force was waiting for her presentation at the national sales meeting. They were an angry crowd. Revenue and market share were declining, while manufacturing and customer costs were on the rise. Spirits were down and trust in management was nonexistent in this once stellar company. (1)

As she approached the podium, she decided to take a different approach to her presentation. She opted to talk honestly about what everyone else was discussing at the water cooler…

"I've always heard about what a wonderful company this is, but frankly, that's not what I see. What I see is deteriorating morale, disillusioned customers, and finger pointing. I see a place where R&D and manufacturing are practically at war. You folks in sales blame manufacturing, R&D blames marketing. We're all so busy blaming each other that nothing gets done. No wonder our customers are furious with us."

The response to the CEO’s frank comments was shock… at first. Then emotions changed. People began nodding in agreement. By the time Ginger Graham finished, they were shouting their approval and giving her a standing ovation. It was the beginning of her odyssey of honesty. Here's how we can apply what she learned to build more honesty in our work:

1. Assign employee coaches to executives.

2. Report the whole truth.

3. Ask the rank-and-file for help.

4. Tell stories.

5. Solicit ‘honesty’ feedback.

1. Assign employee coaches to executives.

Graham assigned each of her executives a coach from the non-managerial ranks. These rank-and-file coaches were asked to uncover employee perceptions about the executives’ honesty, approachability, responsiveness... The coaches met with the executives once a quarter to deliver their reports. The executives then met with each other to hold each other accountable to act on this honest feedback. Who should coach you?

2. Report the whole truth.

Despite what Jack Nicholson’s character proclaimed in the movie A Few Good Men, most employees can handle the truth. They not only can handle it, they hunger for it. Graham's team began talking with employees about everything that had been previously discussed only in senior management meetings. Topics included sales goals, financial performance, product milestones, key competitive information, market trends, problems, opportunities, successes, and failures. Information was disseminated and discussed at all-hands-meetings, as well as staff meetings throughout the organization. How can you disseminate more information to your team?

3. Ask the rank-and-file for help.

None of us is as smart as all of us. When employees have the right information, they can collectively come up with very effective and efficient solutions to difficult problems. Graham gives the example of a product launch that went so well that the executive team was on the verge of asking people to work seven days a week, three shifts a day, including Thanksgiving and Christmas in order to meet demand. Instead of making this unreasonable demand, the leaders called a meeting of all on their employees. They discussed the product rollout success and relayed powerful stories about the product from delighted patients and physicians. Then they asked the employees how to meet the extraordinary demand for their new product.

"Could you wrap our Christmas presents?" one woman asked.

"We’ll do more than that. Give us your lists, and will hire people to shop for you," the executives volunteer.

Graham reported that within a half hour, the employees came up with a variety of ways to manage the tension between meeting production goals and meeting their family needs during the holidays. What difficult problems might you bring to your team?

4. Tell stories.

The rank-and-file story in the previous section became a powerful anecdote about honesty that was frequently repeated in meetings and private conversations. Retelling stories weaves their lessons into the very fabric of an organization, and is how cultures are created. Winston Churchill was famous for promising "blood, toil, tears and sweat.” If you want more honesty, tell stories about people who delivered honest messages in tough times. What stories should you be telling?

5. Solicit ‘honesty’ feedback.

That which gets measured gets repeated. If you want to ensure that honesty is alive and well in your team, monitor and measure it. Graham implemented the “hot seat” feedback session. Each member of the senior management team would sit on a tall stool in front of his or her peers. One by one, their peers would bring up the shortcomings they had observed and offer suggestions for improvement. Initially, these were very unpopular sessions. However, over time people understood that feedback is neutral. It's up to the individual to choose how he or she wants to deal with it. Graham concluded that the hot seat was the most powerful tool for building mutual accountability and honest communication that she had ever seen. How might you adapt this tool to increase honesty on your team?

Is leadership honesty the best policy? In a word, YES… IF you want to achieve eXtraordinary long-term results.

Let me know what you think. I'd love to hear from you.

Dave

1. Ginger Graham; If You Want Honesty, Break Some Rules, Harvard Business Review, April 2002, 42 – 47.

The Latest Leadership Lessons from Zig Ziglar

As you may know from reading Dave's Raves, last November I was honored to be invited to the dedication ceremony of the Zig Ziglar Center for Ethical Leadership at Southern Nazarene University - SNU (Zig is pictured here after a LONG day).

What you may NOT know, is Zig and his son Tom, CEO of Ziglar Inc., asked me to drive with them from Dallas to the ceremony so we could discuss my latest leadership research (based on my analysis of more than 170,000 leaders). As I reflect on our drive time and our 17-year relationship, I realize that Zig is an eXceptional leader who sustains eXtraordinary performance because he integrates the four critical leadership styles scientific studies reveal are the key to success, especially in tough times.

1. Rational - Pursue what is true.

2. Visionary - Creativity flows where knew knowledge goes.

3. Empowering - Appreciate appreciation.

4. Commanding - Choose to embrace the struggle.

1. Rational - Pursue what is true.

The year was 1992; Zig and I took our seats at the Universal Hilton hotel café in Studio City, CA after his inspiring talk. Before his salad arrived, Zig asked me to tell him about my research idea.

“Zig, I’ve been listening to your programs for a decade. They’ve worked for me and I’d like to study how they work for others.” I went on to explain how I wanted to research goal setting with him.

“That sounds great Dave. Let’s make it happen.” He smiled.

It was during this meeting that I realized that Zig is more than a ‘motivational speaker,’ he is a difference maker dedicated to pursuing and teaching the truth. While many leaders confuse anecdotes for evidence, Zig applies his RATIONAL leadership style to research what really works. He understands that science has the tools and rules to test our assumptions and biases. How well do you pursue what is true?

2. Visionary - Creativity flows where knew knowledge goes.

During our drive time to SNU, Zig told me that he was not a good student when he was in school, but became a great one after. At age 82, he still spends three hours every day studying, and several hours preparing for every presentation. He told me that his creative juices flow when he links current information with new ideas. VISIONARY leaders like Zig know that today’s problems cannot be solved with yesterday’s thinking. How are you stimulating your creativity through constant learning?

3. Empowering - Appreciate appreciation.

A few years after our first meeting, Zig invited me to attend his presentation at the Great Western Forum, former home for the Los Angeles Lakers. As we marched through the labyrinth of corridors and got closer to the stage, Zig began thanking all the people behind the scenes for supporting him when he’s on the stage.

Zig applied his EMPOWERING leadership by offering sincere praise and appreciation to the sound, lighting, and maintenance engineers who, based on their delighted faces, seldom hear an encouraging word. Leaders lift the spirit of those in need. Who needs an uplifting word from you today?

4. Commanding - Choose to embrace the struggle.

The dedication of the Leadership Center was amazing. People flew in from all over the country. Several guests spoke about how Zig’s teaching had helped them achieve top performance. I was fortunate to sit next to a CEO who had climbed Mount Everest. He said practicing Zig’s principles motivated him to reach the top… literally.

We heard from Zig when his daughter Julie interviewed him. Although a fall last year has affected his short-term memory, it is inspiring to see Zig still wow the crowd as he embraces his struggle. He believes these obstacles are his stepping-stones. Leaders like Zig access their COMMANDING leadership style by choosing to respond to adversity, not react to it. How can you choose to be more proactive and less reactive to adversity?

Rational, Visionary, Empowering, Commanding are the four critical leadership styles that my analysis of hundreds of research studies shows that eXceptional leaders, like Zig, use to achieve eXtraordinary results. If you would like to receive a free copy of “Twenty Top Tips to eXpand Your Leadership and Achieve eXtraordinary Results During Tough Times,” e-mail me @ djensensss@aol.com (NO CHARGE).

Keep on eXpanding,

Dave

How Leaders Increase Accountability for Results

Have you ever attended a seminar, class, or workshop, picked up valuable techniques to help you on the job, but then got back to work only to become so busy that you don’t use these techniques? Of course, it happens to all of us. But how would you like to discover a simple technique that significantly increases the probability that you get results?

Professor Gail Matthews, from the Dominican University of California, recruited 267 participants from a wide variety of businesses, organizations and networking groups throughout the world for a study on how goal achievement in the workplace is influenced by writing goals, committing to goal-directed actions, and being accountable to others. (1)

Participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups:

Group 1 was asked to think about their goals. (43%)

Groups 2 -- 5 were asked to write their goals. (61%)

Group 3 was also asked to formulate action commitments. (51%)

Group 4 was asked to formulate action commitments and send their goals and action commitments to a supportive friend. (64%)

Group 5 was asked to formulate action commitments and send their goals, action commitments, and weekly progress reports to support a friend. (76%)

At the end of four weeks, participants were asked to rate their progress in the degree to which they had accomplish their goals. The percentage within the parentheses above indicates the percent of accomplished goals for that group. In other words, individuals in group 1 accomplished 43% of their stated goals versus 76% for those in group 5.

I strongly urge you to implement the findings of Dr. Matthews' research if you want to increase the probability that you and your team actually use ideas after attending a workshop, class, or seminar. Write a goal, create an action plan to achieve the goal, and most importantly... hold yourself (and others) accountable by e-mailing a colleague progress once a week. How do you increase accountability?

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1.http://www.dominican.edu/academics/facultypages/gailmatthews/researchsummary2.pdf

How Leaders Tackle the Top Six Trustbusters

The dictionary defines trust as “relying upon or placing confidence in someone or something.” Every leader knows how important trust is. Yet, research tells us that trust in leaders and organizations is at an all-time low.

Professor Robert Hurley from Fordham University in New York surveyed 450 executives from 30 global companies and found only half of all these executives trusted their leader. (1) Another survey of 12,750 U.S. workers at all job levels revealed that ONLY:

- 39 percent of employees at U.S. companies trust their senior leaders. (2)

- 45 percent say they have confidence in the job being done by senior management.

- 43 percent of employees say they trust the way their company manages change (e.g., restructuring, downsizing, merging, expansion and growth…).

This epidemic of low trust infects employee morale, retention, recruitment, productivity, sales, as well as office politics, customer service, product quality, and the long-term financial performance of the organization. (3) (4)

One of the reasons that leaders find trust difficult to maintain is that there are three categories of trust within an organization. (3) If any one of these three takes a hit, it bleeds into the others. The three are:

Strategic Trust -- is there confidence that senior management is setting the right direction?

Personal Trust -- does the employee have confidence in his or her manager?

Organizational Trust -- can the employees rely upon the organization itself?

Here are the most common causes of broken trust within these categories and how to repair them:

1. The Moose Is Loose. Mr. Gerrosi was my eighth grade science teacher. He had a big nose, like a moose. As we were sitting in class, the first week back from summer vacation, he made the ridiculous comment that he did not believe in medical operations. I stared at his smaller nose, still scarred from the surgeon's summer knife. I blurted out, "Wasn’t your summer nose job an operation?" I spent the next week staying after school, in detention, contemplating the concept of the "undiscussable."

Organizations, like classrooms, have undiscussables. The more there are the lower the trust. One way to measure this enemy of trust is to ascertain if difficult issues are discussed in meetings the same way they are discussed in the bar at night.

You can increase trust by discussing what was previously undiscussable. Let the Moose loose. One project management team I was working with actually had a stuffed moose as a mascot. Any team member could pick up the moose, plopped it on the table during meetings in order to bring up a sensitive issue… without any recourse. This was a very successful project team. If the nature of the issue is such that you cannot discuss it, it's okay to say, "I'm sorry, I can't discuss this topic in detail because it would violate a confidence. But here's what I can tell you at this time."

2. Inconsistent Messages. Message mismatch occurs at all levels of an organization, thereby affecting all three categories of trust. Consider the all hands meeting recently conducted by the executive team of a billion-dollar high-tech firm. The CEO began the meeting by reinforcing the importance of a major change initiative, which had been introduced a month ago. He said he wanted feedback regarding the implementation of this important initiative. Because many of the employees felt anxious about their roles under the new plan, the first question after the CEO’s remarks concerned the lack of job clarity. The CEO responded by reminding everyone that the initiative was here to stay and he would not tolerate any negativity. This stunned employee sat down, audience feedback stopped, and trust was broken.

Researchers at Harvard University surveyed nearly 1,300 employees, customers, investors, and suppliers to understand the nature of trust with various stakeholders. (5). They found that trust goes up when stakeholders see espoused values in action. The CEO in the above story violated this trust because he said he valued feedback, but shut it down when he didn't like what he heard. Don’t practice what you preach; preach only what you practice.

3. Inconsistent Standards. At a national sales meeting, I observed the senior vice president of sales leaving the hotel with a first-year salesperson. Don, another first-year salesperson turned to me and said that although he had sold more than the departing rookie had, he was confident that the senior vice president was going to select his "buddy" as rookie of the year. During the awards ceremony the following night, Don smiled at me when his prediction came true. Later that evening Don told me that the criteria for selecting who received which sales awards was never published. Therefore, he and his sales colleagues believed politics and the good-old-boy network predominated. Where cynicism is high, trust is low.

Light is the best disinfectant. The best way to avoid the perception of inconsistent standards is to publish those standards. In addition, soliciting feedback from multiple sources provides the capability for early course correction if you get off track.

4. Misplaced Benevolence. Have you ever seen an employee who is performing poorly because he is clearly over his head -- incapable of doing the job? Did you wonder why his supervisor wasn't doing something about this employee? I can guarantee you that his colleagues and direct reports were all wondering the same thing. One company I consulted with had such a strong culture of caring that their CEO asked me to help redesign parts of their leadership curriculum in order to increase performance accountability. Caring about employees is critical. Tolerating incompetent employees is a trustbuster.

Most poor performers receive false feedback. If they are fired, the most common complaint you hear from them is, "look at my great performance reviews!" This is why so many managers find themselves sitting in human resource offices discussing wrongful termination lawsuits. Don't let that happen to you. Employees will not trust you or the organization unless you honor the company's performance review systems. They also will not work hard for you if they see others not held accountable for poor performance.

5. Failure to Delegate. Trusting others to do what they're supposed to do is difficult to do. This is especially true if you have a tendency to be a perfectionist, workaholic, or micromanager. One senior executive I recently coached, Casey had this exact problem with one of his high-performing direct reports, Douglas. Douglas actually told me he did not trust his boss Casey when I interviewed him as part of my coaching assignment. Mediocre performers do not leave when they feel micromanaged, the best performers do. I was worried that Douglas was going to leave.

Two months into our work together, Casey said he received an e-mail from Douglas praising Casey‘s growth. Casey told me that the relationship improved because he improved his ability to delegate to Douglas.

6. Consistent Corporate Underperformance. If a company does not meet the financial expectations set by their executive team, investors lose confidence, stock prices plunge, and employee trust falls. Nature abhors a vacuum; and corporations fill vacuums with rumors. So set realistic expectations and communicate the why behind those expectations.

These are the big six trustbusters. Do you see others operating in your environment? What behaviors do you need to exhibit more often to increase trust?

Keep achieving eXtraordinary results,

Dave

1. Robert Hurley; The Decision to Trust, Harvard Business Review, September 2006, 55 – 62

2. http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/resrender.asp?id=W-557&page=1

3. Robert Galford and Anne Seiblod Drapeau; The Enemies of Trust, Harvard Business Review, February 2003, 89 -- 95.

4. Ingrid Smithey-Fulmer; Barry Gerhart, and Kimberly Scott; Are the 100 best better? An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Being a "Great Place To Work" and Firm Performance, Personnel Psychology, vol. 56, no. 4, Winter 2003, 965-993

5. Michael Pirson and Deepak Malhotra, The Secrets of Trust, ‘MIT Sloan Management Review,’ Summer 2008, volume 49, number 4, page 43 -- 50.

The Top 10 Tools Leaders Use to Create Teamwork

President Lincoln once summoned a newspaper reporter to the White House. As the reporter entered the Oval Office, Lincoln was petting his golden Labrador retriever.

The president stood up to shake the reporter’s hand.” Thank you for coming. Please, have a seat."

As they both sat down, the president continued, “I've been reading some of your reports about the Civil War. I don't think you have your facts right."

"Well Mr. President, my sources tell me the facts and I print them."

Just then, the president's dog got up and sauntered across the room. Lincoln sprang to his feet, pointed at the dog’s tail, and bellowed, "Son, if I told you that the tail on my dog was a leg, how many legs would my dog have?"

The startled reporter blurted, "Mr. President, if you told me that tail was a leg, your dog would have five legs."

"No," replied the president, "My dog would still have only four legs. Just because I told you the tail was leg doesn't make it a leg… AND just because a source tells you something about the Civil War doesn't make it true."

Just because someone tells you that you have a team doesn't make it a team. A team is a group of people working together towards a common goal. President Lincoln is reminding us that if you're not working together towards a common goal you don't have a team. You may have a single leader work group, but you do not have a team. Professors Kozlowski and Ilgen from Michigan State University state that the first fundamental question that needs to be asked before putting a team together is whether you actually need a group of people to come together to achieve a common goal. (1) If the answer is yes, here is what the research says are the top 10 tools to reaching your team goal.

1. Set a clear goal. The goal must also lead to specific objectives and create a sense of urgency. The more urgent, relevant and meaningful the goal, the more motivated the team.

2. Select the right team members. The reason a team is created in the first place is that the knowledge to accomplish the goal is not in one person’s head. An analysis of 6,000 team members and leaders by Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson found that the selection criteria for team members should include working knowledge and teamwork attributes. (2) The working knowledge attributes are the specific skills and experiences needed to solve problems and carry out the project tasks. The teamwork attributes included openness, supportiveness, action oriented, and a positive personal style.

3. Create metrics. Measurements eliminate arguments. Metrics provide a dashboard for team members and senior management to steer individual and collective performance. They also increase role clarity and accountability.

4. Encourage contact. Familiarity breeds compatibility. Frequent and informal social interactions among team members improves teamwork according to an analysis of 17,000 patents. (3) In addition, team members should maintain their connections with internal and external stakeholders.

5. Define norms. Norms are the rules, often unwritten, that dictate how team members behave. They are "the way we do things around here." Successful teams define which areas need clarity and then create specific norms for each of these areas. I recently facilitated a leadership retreat where I helped managers create well-defined norms for better communication, effective recognition programs, and motivating meetings. Which norms do you need to create?

6. Emphasize a learning culture. Teams that train together achieve more according to an analysis of 169 teams by MIT professor Deborah Ancona and her colleagues. (4) In addition to learning from each other, challenging the group with information from external experts reminds the team to search outside their own, narrow borders for new ideas, information, and experience.

7. Delegate decision-making. Responsibility without authority is lame. Too much leader interference is perceived as micromanaging and lowers team morale. The authority to decide how to reach the goal should be left to the team.

8. Develop an environment that supports execution. The most successful teams develop processes that encourage sharing external information, transparent decision-making, and scheduling tools that visibly communicate progress and flexible deadlines.

9. Reward team achievement. That which is appreciated appreciates. If you want teamwork, reward it. Brainstorm with the team the many ways to applaud both individual contributions to the team, as well as collective team accomplishments.

10. Involve the team in implementation. Handoffs are where the baton is dropped. If the project must be given to another group, involve a few of original team members during implementation phases to increase the probability that it is implemented well.

Cisco is at the forefront of collaboration and teamwork. (5) They have created a network of cross-functional and international councils and boards empowered to fund projects and launch new businesses. The company is also investing heavily in social networking applications. They promote an open-source culture by encouraging employee blogging, uploading of videos, and tagging of strengths in their Facebook-style internal directory.

Cisco is not calling a tail a leg. Their team focus has expedited innovation and produced a tenfold increase in new projects. How much of an increase do you think you'll see by adapting these top 10 tools to your team? Let me know. I'd love to hear from you. (For 4 great Leadership ideas, check out Harvard Business Blog @ http://blogs.bnet.com/teamwork/?p=567&tag=content;col1 )

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Steve Kozlowski and Daniel Ilgen; The Science of Team Success, ‘Scientific American Mind,’ June/July 2007, 54 -- 61.

2. Frank LaFasto and Carl Larson; “When Teams Work Best,” 2001, Sage Publications, Inc.

3. Lee Fleming; Perfecting Cross-Pollination, Harvard Business Review, September 2004, 22 – 23.

4. Deborah Ancona, Henrik Bresman, and Katrin Kaufer; MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2002, 33 – 39.

5. Ellen Mcgirt; Revolution in San Jose, ‘Fast Company,’ December 2008/January 2000, 88 -- 94 and 134 -- 135.

Leading Innovation - How Google Does It

The customer looked up from the computer screen, "Dave, this software module is fantastic. How did Siemens come up with it?"

"I worked with one of our recently hired programmers, Ray. He's part of our new, innovative engineering team. They focus on bringing products to market fast."

"OK Dave, I'll buy from you this time. But only because you're telling me that Siemens is becoming more innovative and responsive to customers. I still think they're like a giant elephant that has not learned to dance. But I'll give you and them a try."

Ray left the following year. The new team collapsed. The top salespeople (including me) left within two years. Siemen's U.S. west coast market share plunged from 50% to 15% faster than you could say "abandon ship." The elephant had not learned to dance (i.e., innovate) because Siemens didn’t know how to consistently tap into the innovative talent of their employees. Do you tap into yours?

Let's look to Google, the second most innovative company in the world according to BusinessWeek, to help you unleash the creative energy of your people. (1) Here are six strategies that researchers from Babson College discovered help elephants like Google dance (2):

1. Budget innovation into the job description. Managers are required to spend approximately 30% of their time on innovation. They are held accountable for this time in their frequent reviews.

2. Eliminate friction at every turn. Google's approach to innovation is akin to jazz, very improvisational. Any engineer in the company at any level can create a new product or a new feature to an existing product. One engineer tells the story of his first month on the job. He complained to a coworker about the Google e-mail system. His coworker told him to fix it himself. After doing so, his code was reviewed the following day by the e-mail engineers. A week later, his changes were incorporated into the software.

3. Let the market choose. Google has no grand design regarding how new offerings fit together. They let the market do that. They do not worry about identifying the perfect product mix. Google perceives their 132 million users as evaluators of new products.

4. Cultivate a taste for failure and chaos. Nature teaches us that experimentation is king of the jungle. Google plants a thousand flowers and analyzes which ones bloom. Executives are unfettered by failure. In fact, they perceive failure is merely corrective’s feedback. Google CEO Eric Schmidt encourages this experimental mindset when he says, "Please fail very quickly -- so that you can try again."

5. Create a collaborative work environment. Google packs offices close together for better communication, conducts all hands meetings every Friday, and maintains a rigorous interviewing and hiring process.

6. Use feedback to stay on track. Employees are scored on 25 performance metrics. Google systematically models the attributes of their highest performing employees, while continually modifying their hiring approach based on ongoing analysis of performance.

The 2008 Innovation Survey by BusinessWeek reported that Siemens is now ranked 38th in innovation among global companies (1). I'm happy to hear my former employer has taught their elephant to dance. Which of these strategies could be adapted to fit your team? How surprised will you be when your elephant starts performing the Nutcracker Suite?

See you in the ballroom,

Dave

1. http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/feb2008/id2008027_367300.htm

2. Bala Iyer and Thomas Davenport; Reverse Engineering Google's Innovation Machine, "Harvard Business Review", April 2008, 59 - 68.

Leading Research on Goal ACHIEVING

In the extraordinary book Goal Setting and Task Performance, Professors Locke and Latham summarize 393 separate research studies on goal setting, involving 40,000 subjects engaged in 88 different tasks, over time spans ranging from minutes to years. (1) According to their exhaustive research, the probability of reaching a goal increases when leaders:

- Set specific and difficult goals

- Limit the number of goals

- Create short-term and long-term goals

Many of us have dreams and desires, few of us write them as goals. We start out all fired up, then something happens; we slip, we fall, we get caught up in the same old routine... In no time, the fire that fueled our goal is a tumbleweed in the desert wind. Have you ever wondered why that is?

People often confuse foggy dreams with clear goals. Having a foggy goal is like setting sail for an uncharted island that you hope is out there... somewhere! In reviewing hundreds of research studies on how people achieve their goals, I discovered it is best to just say KNOW to foggy dreams, and yes to S.M.A.R.T. goals:

Soul – Are you in your goal?

Measurable – How will you measure what matters?

Attainable – Is your target out of sight?

Responsible – Who is on your team?

Timed – Do you have a date?

S – Soul. An acorn becomes an oak because that is its nature. Grass pushes through the sidewalk cracks because it’s expressing its true nature. You are here to nurture your nature. This means your goal should connect with who you are and encourage your 'YOUnique' talents to shine. We often fail to reach our goals because we don't hear what our soul whispers. Instead, we listen to well-meaning friends, coworkers, or the media advising us to set sail for destinations that do not truly capture our imagination. There is little soul in a goal when someone decides it for us. As you set sail on your journey, how will you (and members of your team) put soul in your goal?

M – Measurable. People often become sidetracked from their goal because they don't have a method of keeping track of their progress. A physician has her patient charts, a salesperson has his quotas, and sports have the scoreboard. How might you and your team monitor your success throughout the year.

A – Attainable. There is a greeting card that reads, 'Shoot for the moon - if you miss you’ll be among the stars.' The problem is, if you miss the moon, you could also end up lost in space! After analyzing 175 scientific studies on goal difficulty, Professor Locke from the University of Maryland concluded that hard goals lead to greater effort than easy goals, assuming the goals are accepted. Some leaders set their goals so far out there that the team never fully accepts them. How will you ensure that the team can see and believe that your destination is attainable?

R – Responsible. The sun is setting on the individual goal achiever. We all need a little help to reach our destination. There's just too much to know, too many obstacles to overcome, and it's too easy to let ourselves stay down when we slip. The Lone Ranger had Tonto, and Frodo had Sam in 'The Lord of Rings.' Whom do you have? The R in S.M.A.R.T. refers to your supporting cast, people who are 'Responsible' for encouraging you and holding you accountable to reach your destination. These few allies are usually friends, coworkers, or family members who believe in you and your goals.

T - Time. There is a reason the word, 'deadline' begins with dead. This last simple step announces to your subconscious that you're dead serious about reaching your destination. It is not good enough to say you will accomplish your goal in six months; you must write a specific date and then review your S.M.A.R.T. goal every day.

Now you know why you shouldn't be a tumbleweed in the desert. Just say 'KNOW' to foggy dreams by saying yes to S.M.A.R.T. goals.

Keep eXpanding,

Dave

1. Locke E and Latham G: A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1990.