Archive for the ‘Myths and Misconceptions About Management’ Category

This blog post caught my attention today. I think this is something that we, as quintessential leaders, need to think deeply about.

I know a lot of us are “busy.” But the question we need to ask is ourselves is “doing what?” Are we busy for the sake of being busy and accomplishing little? Are we busy to the point that we have wrecked our lives in pursuit of for, what in the end, will be nothing? Or are we busy in a productive, life-changing – for ourselves and others – way that will have tangible results in the long-term? Or is our “busyness” simply nothing more than a waste of our and others’ time?

Tough questions. Tough answers.

But, my fellow quintessential leaders, we must ask and answer these questions. Honestly. If the answers find our efforts to be mere busyness and not life, team, personally-changing, then I challenge each of us to take a step back to focus on our priorities, what is important, and what matters.

After all, the only thing we take out of this life is our character and how well we have managed all the relationships we’ve committed to: to God and Jesus Christ first because every other relationship we manage and commit to is based on this. To our spouses. To our families. To our teams. To humanity.

I certainly know I have a lot of work to do in each of these. What about you?

sofagirl's avatarCampari and Sofa

Stop the glorification of busy.My friend Gavin was telling me about a conversation he had with some Dutch colleagues. Gavin, and his compadre Georgina, find that the sheer volume of work they are confronted with on a weekly basis is just un-doable within the confines of a normal 8-hour work day. So they regularly put in 10-hour days at the office. And another couple of hours at home picking up emails. This causes all sorts of problems: they’re tired all the time, their spouses feel ignored, they don’t want to go out at night or over the weekend and they lose touch with friends.

Hmmfff…”, said their pals, “In Holland, if you were to work like that we would think you were not coping.”

“Am I”, he wondered, “not coping? Or am I doing more than I should? And if I am doing more than I should –  what should I stop doing? And…

View original post 1,063 more words

This is about quintessential leadership. Ethics. Doing the right thing. Making the right choices. The fields we’re in don’t matter. The choices we make do. Always. Never forget that. When you forget that you are responsible for the choices you make, then you forget your principles, your ethics, your moral principles.

In short, you forget that you are a quintessential leader.

As quintessential leaders, we can never forget what our foundation, our principles, our ethics, the very cores of who and what we are consists of.

Tarun Gill's avatarTarun Gill Motivation

communications as a careerIn life you would always have two options for everything. That’s why we are tagged as byproduct of the choices we make in life.

As a communication professional, you would make some good choices and some not so good choices in choosing your employer.

Lets face it, communications, as a function is not a common one. In some organizations the communications role doesn’t exist. This is not a local practice but a global trend. Businesses don’t really understand what corporate communications is? No wonder we are often struggling to quantify what we do in the organization.

One thing, which we have to be very clear of, weather, you are a fresher passed out from a mass communication college or an experienced individual. Communication will always be a “Good to have” Line of business not a “Need to have”. And not so evolved organizations always are focusing in fixing up their…

View original post 290 more words

Beneath today’s termination of Mike Price’s contract as head basketball coach at Rutgers University lies a very common story about the way many people in leadership positions now function and operate day-in and day-out.

Rutgers' head coach Mike Rice It’s interesting to see how much indignation about this.one.incident comes pouring forth, while the larger problem – and the bigger picture – is virtually ignored.

The reality is that this is a vivid example of a now very-common story line that shows how abuse of all kinds is allowed (and, often, encouraged), tolerated, and committed by people in leadership positions throughout every segment of society today. Committing abuse is present in some shape or form in every organizational construct today. It’s a reflection of a society that has come to accept the existence of abuse as being normal. As quintessential leaders, it is imperative that we are discerning and attentive so that we recognize abuse, no matter how subtly-shaded it is, and reject it as wrong and eliminate it wherever it exists.

Mike Price’s story as an abusive coach at the collegiate level is not unfamiliar. Bobby Knight at Indiana University and Woody Hayes at Ohio State come to mind almostBobby Knight Indiana University immediately.

Woody Hayes Ohio State UniversityHowever, as I discussed last year in “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely,” regarding Penn State and which I discuss in detail in one of the components of Building Trust and Being Trustworthyall of the people in leadership positions at Rutgers have shown unquintessential leadership in this matter. Because this is the second time in 16 years, that we know of, this kind of abuse has occurred with Rutgers’ athletic program – it is obvious that allowing, tolerating, and committing abuse is accepted as standard operating procedure among those in leadership positions at Rutgers. And when those in leadership positions at an organization accept abuse, abusive behavior spreads throughout the organization.

But frequency of occurrence is not the most damning evidence that those in leadership positions at Rutgers University accept abusive behavior as being normal and okay. The back story to Mike Rice’s termination today, however, is.

One of Rice’s coaching assistants, Eric Murdock, brought Rice’s abusive behavior toward players – recorded on video from practices from 2010-2012 – to the attention of Rutgers University’s athletic director, Tim Pernetti, early last summer. Rice fired Murdock in July 2012. Pernetti suspended Rice for three games and fined him $50,000 in December 2012 after the attorneys for Murdock, who sued Rutgers University for wrongful termination, produced video proof of Rice’s abusive behavior toward his players in November 2012.

If Murdock had not threatened to release the video tape to larger audiences, this would have been the only action that Rutgers University would have taken against Mike Rice. However, once the video became public, then those in leadership positions at Rutgers University – and this includes those in executive leadership positions outside the athletic department – decided the behavior of Rice was egregious enough to terminate his contract with the university.

And therein lies an unquintessential leadership philosophy: it’s okay to do the wrong thing as long as you don’t get caught and/or no one else knows or finds out about it. Everyone in a leadership position at Rutgers University clearly embraces and believes this philosophy. By extension, this philosophy is being passed on as acceptable and normal to every student who attends Rutgers University. What does this say about how these students will act and behave when they get into leadership positions in their careers?

Think about that carefully for a while. It should make all of us in leadership positions and we, who are striving to be quintessential leaders in every aspect of our lives, stop and take stock of our own actions, behaviors and beliefs. Do we allow abuse? Do we tolerate abuse? Do we encourage abuse? Do we commit abuse? If we do, then we need to change completely. If we don’t, then we need to stay vigilant to ensure that what has become normal and acceptable behavior among those in leadership positions doesn’t sneak into our behaviors, beliefs, and actions or into the behaviors, beliefs, and actions of our teams.

Inevitably, many people in leadership positions may look at Mike Rice’s behavior and think “well, I’ve never cursed at, thrown things at, or physically pushed around those I lead, so I have never been abusive to anyone I’ve led or lead.” That is very dangerous thinking, because abuse has many faces.

We, as quintessential leaders, as I’ve said many times must be brutally honest with ourselves in examining who and what we are and do to ensure that the person we’re not the most dishonest with is ourselves. This is not easy, but it is absolutely necessary. Let’s all ask and answer the following questions about ourselves in our fearless self-examination of whether we have been or are abusive.

Have I ever implicitly or explicitly threatened someone because that person pointed out something wrong or flawed or inconsistent in me or my behavior?

Have I ever publicly embarrassed or harassed someone to try to force that person to agree with me or see things from my point of view under the guise of helping that person?

Have I ever used the “I’m in charge and if you don’t like it, you can leave” statement to try to intimidate someone who had a different – but not wrong – perspective and/or opinion than I did?

Have I ever used the “silent treatment” to try to manipulate someone into agreeing with or going along with me?

Have I ever talked over someone’s head in an attempt to make that person feel inferior or ignorant?

Have I made general disparaging comments about the intelligence, the quality, the substance, and the efficacy of my teams to put them or keep them “in their place?”

If we answered “yes,” to any of these questions, we’re guilty of having been abusive. And this list of questions is not exhaustive. I urge all of us to think deeply about this subject and identify abuse so that we understand what it is we are fighting and must not allow to become part of our way of being or thinking or doing or speaking.

As human beings, we all tend toward abuse as a defense. It seems to be hard-wired into who and what we are. But, as quintessential leaders, we hold ourselves to a higher standard and part of that higher standard is treating everyone as we ourselves want to be treated. You don’t want to be abused. I don’t want to be abused. And it must be our highest priority not to be abusive in any part of our lives.

I spoke of the courage that quintessential leaders must have in my last post. This is a concrete example of what that courage looks like.

This last post analyzing the quintessential leadership of Henry VIII will cover the last 11 years of Henry’s life. We will pick up here where we left off at the end of Quintessential Leadership Analysis of Henry VIII – Pt. 2 – 1525 – 1536.

After having Anne Boleyn executed in early 1536, Henry VIII married Jane Seymour. Jane was perhaps, if such a thing existed for Henry VIII, the love of his life. Jane Jane Seymour - Third Wife of Henry VIIIbrought all the qualities of quiet submission, calming influence, virtuous dignity, and careful circumspection that Anne Boleyn lacked to her marriage and to the throne. Her family, as Boleyn’s had been, became ensconced at the royal court once Jane became queen.

While Jane’s character seems to be beyond reproach, the same cannot be said of her two brothers, Edward and Thomas Seymour (who was executed by the Privy Council two years after Henry VIII’s death on charges of treason). The longevity of the Seymour brothers being installed at court shows how mercurial both they and Henry VIII were. Edward and Thomas were good at eliminating their competition, blaming others for mistakes, and twisting things to appeal to increasingly-mentally-unstable Henry VIII. They had no ethics, unlike Jane, who seems to have been quite ethical, much like Catherine of Aragon.

Jane was able to accomplish several important things during her brief tenure as queen. She worked hard to bring Mary I back to court regularly, which enabled Henry VIII and Mary to develop a stronger familial bond. Most importantly, she gave birth to a healthy, live male heir – the one thing that mattered most in the world to Henry VIII. However, the labor was difficult and prolonged, and Jane died on October 24, 1537, twelve days after giving birth to Edward VI.

There are two pieces of evidence that support that Jane Seymour held a special place in Henry VIII’s life. One was that Henry mourned her death for an extended period of time and did not remarry – although Thomas Cromwell was almost immediately searching for marriage prospects for Henry after Jane’s death – for three years. The second was that Henry was buried according to his wishes beside Jane after his death in 1547.

Thomas Cromwell pretty much ran the country during Henry’s period of mourning, and it was in this capacity that he both overreached his abilities and made old enemies greater enemies and made new enemies as well, including the Seymour brothers.

Cromwell was a true religious reformist and saw an opportunity to further the English reformation and strengthen the crown’s coffers by taking over and shutting down monasteries throughout England. A lot of these monasteries had financial and physical assets that made them wealthy, and Cromwell saw an opportunity to both push the religious reform and confiscate those assets for the crown. He assured Henry that there was little to no opposition to it.

Cromwell, aided by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, began a systemic pillaging campaign against all the monasteries. There was organized opposition when the campaign got to the northern part of England, but it was quickly and harshly suppressed by mass executions sanctioned by Henry at Cromwell’s suggestion.

Thomas Cromwell’s undoing came as a result of the marriage he arranged between the German Anne of Cleves and Henry in January 1540. Cromwell touted the beauty of Anne to Henry, while hoping that an alliance with Lutheran Germany would truly bring reform to the English church, but he clearly misread the fact that Henry was thoroughly a Catholic in his dogma and, in true unquintessential leadership fashion,  was just using the church and reforms to achieve his own ends and serve his own interests.

The Anne that Henry met was not the Anne that Cromwell had described to him, and,Anne of Cleves - Fourth Wife of Henry VIII after failing to find a way to void the marriage contract, Henry relented to marry her. However, the marriage was never consummated and was annulled in July 1540.

Henry VIII was generous with Anne of Cleves (she fared the best in life of all his wives) after the annulment, and gave her estates and an income for the rest of her life. Anne and Henry also became good friends and Anne had very close relationships with both Mary and Elizabeth. Anne was instrumental in Henry’s decision to reinstate both daughters in the legitimate line of succession after Edward VI, and she lived to see Mary I crowned in 1553, after Edward’s death.

Henry blamed Cromwell for the marriage fiasco and the enemies that Cromwell had accrued at court saw their opportunity to get rid of him.

Here is an unquintessential leadership trait that Henry VIII possessed. He was always susceptible – perhaps because of his own declining mental health – to believing stories of treason, corruption, and general dishonor. Henry was persuaded by Cromwell’s opponents that Cromwell was a traitor and Henry sentenced him to execution. Cromwell was beheaded, in what by all accounts was a botched execution that required several strokes of the ax before his head was actually cut off, on July 8, 1540.

Cromwell was the most capable, albeit ruthless and unscrupulous, chief minister that Henry VIII had, and Henry later regretted Cromwell’s execution, accusing his ministers of bringing false charges to him about Cromwell to secure his execution.

This is an example of unquintessential leadership as well. Henry VIII consistently blamed other people when things went wrong. He never took responsibility as the ultimate authority in England for decisions that brought consequences he later regretted. We see this trait throughout his life and throughout his rulership of England.

After Cromwell’s death, Charles Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk, and Edward Seymour became Henry VIII’s chief advisers, with Seymour handling the duties of chief minister.

It was just after Henry’s annulment from Anne of Cleves that he married Catherine Howard, the niece of Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk. Catherine was much Catherine Howard - Fifth Wife of Henry VIIIyounger than Henry VIII, which by itself made marriage difficult. But she was also flighty, indiscreet in all things  (including her arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward Henry’s children), and promiscuous before her marriage and had affairs during her marriage – most notably with Thomas Culpepper, Henry’s courtier. These were the nails, so to speak, in her coffin.

She was executed by beheading on grounds of adultery on February 23, 1542. Culpepper had already been executed on the same charges in December of 1541.

After Catherine Howard’s execution, Henry turned his attention toward foreign matters. He had become suspicious of the French and saw them as a contributing factor in Scotland’s frequent insurgencies into the northern part of England. Convinced that Francis was reneging on the Franco-English alliance, Henry decided to break the alliance and form a new alliance against France with Charles V and Spain.

In 1543, Henry also married again. His new wife was Catherine Parr. Catherine and Thomas Seymour had been planning to marry, which Henry was aware of, so Henry sent Thomas out of the country before Henry and Catherine were married. CatherineCatherine Parr - Sixth Wife of Henry VIII seems to have been much like Jane Seymour in her circumspection, and she welcomed and was extremely close to all of Henry’s children, taking the responsibility for ensuring the further education of Elizabeth I and Edward VI. She outlived Henry and died after childbirth in 1548 during her final marriage to Thomas Seymour (they married in secret about six months after Henry’s death).

In 1544, Henry and Charles decided to invade France. England supplied the navy and Spain supplied the ground troops. Henry intended to regain the land that the English had lost previously to France in Boulogne. Conquest proved difficult and Henry’s sieges were abruptly ended by Spain signing a peace treaty with France. Unable to sustain an all-out war, Henry and the English army returned home.

By this time, Henry VIII was in full decline mentally and physically. His Henry VIII near the end of his lifegluttony and lack of activity since a wound in a jousting match that never healed and limited his mobility caught up with him and by the time he died in 1547, he weighed about 400 pounds. He became a virtual recluse and his mental health deteriorated further. It now appears that he may have suffered from a rare genetic disease known as McLeod neuroacanthocytosis syndrome, which may explain some of the severe physical and most of the severe mental decline Henry experienced as he aged. Whatever genetic factors contributed to Henry VIII’s mental and physical problems, however, cannot be blamed for his intrinsic lack of good and right character.

The two things that consumed Henry, when he was well enough, the last two and a half years of his life were his son and religion. When he died on January 28, 1547, he left a son who would inherit the throne – although his reign would be cut short by an early death in July 1553, which would throw the English monarchy and England into utter chaos until Elizabeth I took the throne in January 1558 – and he left religious reforms – an English Bible, for instance – that paved the way for the English and their descendants to be able to read the Bible themselves and reject the erroneous idea that any human and any religious organization must be the intermediary between humans and their God, a fight still being fought today almost everywhere, although not always as overtly or as obviously as within the Catholic faith, in the world of religion.

On the whole, though, when we look at Henry VIII’s life and reign, regardless of what physiological factors may have played a role, we see an unquintessential leader.

He lacked the ability to build trust and be trustworthy.

He never accepted his responsibility for anything, but instead blamed others when things went wrong.

He was arrogant and full of pride and made some very bad decisions in attempts to prove his superiority to his peers, both at home and abroad.

He lacked any self-control in his private life and his public life.

He had faulty discernment of other people, and allowed himself to be manipulated by every kind of deception and dishonesty at every turn, especially when it suited his needs, served his purposes, or otherwise fulfilled the selfish nature that characterized this man. For Henry VIII, the end always justified the means.

He truly, in the end, only cared about how people and things were useful to him. If they weren’t useful, they ceased to exist (literally, by execution, and mentally in his memory).

As quintessential leaders, we need to observe and evaluate ourselves in light of the unquintessential leadership traits we see in Henry VIII. We need to be brutally honest and ask some hard questions as we look into our own mirrors of leadership.

Does the end justify the means for us? Are we willing to do or allow our teams to do anything, regardless of the ethics, the rightness, the morality, to achieve an outcome we want? If so, we’re being unquintessential leaders.

Do we practice or allow our teams to practice or allow ourselves to be influenced by any kind of deceit and dishonesty (presenting false information as true information, spinning information, angling information, omitting key or relevant information, or misinforming for any reason)? If so, we’re being unquintessential leaders.

Do we manipulate, allow our teams to manipulate, or allow ourselves to be manipulated to achieve an outcome we want? If so, we’re being unquintessential leaders.

Are our decisions made to serve ourselves or to serve others? Do we care about what we want more than we care about what anyone else wants or needs? Will we willingly and cavalierly sacrifice – or eliminate – anybody and everybody to satisfy our own wants and desires? If so, we’re being unquintessential leaders.

Are we always blaming everyone and everything else when things go wrong or don’t go the way we had intended or hoped, never taking any responsibility for our roles as leaders in making the decision? If so, we’re being unquintessential leaders.

Henry VIII should make all of us, as quintessential leaders, take a long, serious, and totally honest gut check to see if and where we are guilty of any of his unquintessential leadership traits and behaviors.

It takes courage, which it seems is hard to find in today’s society, to do a deep and honest moral inventory that actually looks at, actually admits, and immediately changes anything in our lives that reveals any unquintessential leadership traits and behaviors.

A lot of people in leadership positions today are cowards, much like Henry VIII was, who hid behind excuses, justifications, blame, and other people most of his life. Cowardice is the path of least resistance and a coward will find him or herself surrounded by plenty of company.

So I ask you, my fellow quintessential leaders, the same question I ask myself on a continual basis. Are you a coward or are you courageous?

A quick review of the week of March 15, 2013 finds further examples of unquintessential leadership already noted with two principles here previously.

The first is Carnival Cruise Lines. After the debacle the week of February 15, 2013 with the Triumph, this week brings stories about three of the cruise line company’s other ships having similar troubles. The Dream, Elation, and Legend cruise ships all experienced technical difficulties this week, and all have had to be either towed, stopped early, or are limping slowly back to port.

Once again, Carnival’s response is to offer insignificant refunds or discounts, instead of taking their whole fleet off the water for whatever time it takes to update the equipment and make the vessels seaworthy and trustworthy. This is unquintessential leadership because these are serious and potentially dangerous, if not fatal, problems andCarnival Cruise Legend Cruise Ship those in leadership positions are unwilling to acknowledge and fix them immediately, no matter what the cost in money or time is. Those in executive positions at Carnival Cruise Lines are unquintessential leaders because they don’t care about the safety of the passengers nor the reliability and trustworthiness of the company. Instead, all they care about is how much money they can make. This is greed and selfishness in action.

The second principle is freshman Senator Ted Cruz. Senator Cruz is a Harvard Law School graduate who should be totally knowledgeable about the difference between an opinion about the U.S. Constitution and what the U.S. Constitution actually says. If he’s not, then Harvard needs take a serious look at its law school curriculum and professors.

On Thursday, March 14, 2013, Senator Cruz, in what has become his customary rude and disrespectful manner toward more-seasoned legislators, argued during a Senate Judiciary committee meeting than a ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional. In a condescending “schooling” session directed at Senator Dianne Feinstein that, in essence, implied that she had no understanding of the 2nd Amendment, so she needed it explained to her, Senator Cruz said that banning assault weapons is to the 2nd Amendment what censoring books is to the 1st Amendment.

It is not, although that’s what the Tea Party and the NRA would like everyone to believe. The 2nd Amendment says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Supreme Court ruled definitively on the scope of what the 2nd Amendment covers in 2008’s District of Columbia V. Heller, with Justice Anthony Scalia’s majority opinion, which clearly says that 2nd amendment does not preclude banning assault weapons.

The reality is that at the time the amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, no assault weapons existed, and the intent was to give all U.S. citizens the right to protect their homes, property, and families, and to feed themselves through hunting. It goes without saying that one doesn’t need assault weapons to do either of these things.

So Senator Cruz shows his unquintessential leadership again in several ways. First, he doesn’t even know the body of constitutional law involving the 2nd Amendment, which is unacceptable for a person in a leadership position who is a member of a committee that deals with matters involving constitutional law. Second, he is contradicting, without legitimate basis, the highest legal authority in the United States. And third, Senator Cruz consistently shows contempt and disrespect in his dealings and conversations with his colleagues, many of whom have served much longer – admittedly, probably too long in many cases – in the United States Senate than he has.

These are two news items that caught my attention regarding quintessential leadership – or the lack of it – this week. I urge all of us as quintessential leaders to observe the world around us – and that includes the news – and find mirrors that we can look into and see if we’re being the quintessential leaders we’re striving to be and say we are or there are areas where we are being unquintessential leaders and we need to change.

I’ve certainly seen some unquintessential leadership things in my mirrors this week and I have committed myself to changing them into quintessential leadership. We all have our weak spots and our blind spots and our unquintessential leadership thoughts, attitudes, and actions.

The difference between an unquintessential leader and a quintessential leader is that unquintessential leaders always look through windows, so they never see what they need to see about themselves, only what others need to do or change or be.

Quintessential leaders, on the other hand, look into mirrors and when they see the reflections of themselves, they see what needs to done, changed, or who they need to be, and they immediately commit to and start taking action to make that happen.

So my question to you, fellow quintessential leaders, is are you looking through a window or are you looking into a mirror?

In a follow-up to last week’s post on CPR and quintessential leadership regarding the action of a Brookdale Senior Living nurse refusing to do CPR on 87-year-old Lorraine Bayless, I saw this news article today where Brookdale Senior Living, which initially backed up the nurse’s refusal to do CPR as being consistent with company policy, has now reversed their position.

The statement says that the incident “resulted from a complete misunderstanding of our practice with regards to emergency medical care for our residents” and that the nurse had “misinterpreted the company’s guidelines.”

This further shows the unquintessential leadership in place at Brookdale Senior Living. First is the “reversal” of a policy that the company defended and stood by several days. Second is the subtle shifting of the blame to the nurse for the lack of medical attention. And the third is the minimalizing language Brookdale Senior Living uses in their reversal statement. To characterize this incident as “misunderstanding” or “misinterpretation” is to basically say it’s not a big deal, even though that misunderstanding and misinterpretation led to somebody’s death.

All of these show just how entrenched the unquintessential leadership is at Brookdale Senior Living. As I said before, it would be naive to believe this is the only senior living company where practices and policies like these are in place and unquintessential leadership is extant through the ranks within the corporation.

But it should serve as a warning and a caution to those of us entrusted with being quintessential leaders in helping our parents as they age to ensure that we’re providing the best and most care for them, as they did for us when we were babies, helpless, and completely dependent on them. These companies, despite their claims, really don’t have “our residents” as their priority. It is about money (greed) and the law (minimum legal liability).

These are driving forces that the unquintessential leadership in these companies come from, along with the lack of character, integrity, ethics, and moral responsibility that many of the individuals that are employed by these companies possess.