Did you know that health expenditure accounts for nearly 20% of government spending in the US?

That’s right… nearly one in every five of your tax dollars is spent on treating the sick and infirm. That’s twice the amount spent in most European countries.

And the trouble is the health bill is getting bigger and bigger—and that’s a big stumbling block to the economy getting back on track.

I believe the problem is lack of leadership in some very key areas:

• first, our leaders in education need to make lessons in ‘how to stay healthy’ a high priority. If they don’t, people will remain ignorant about the importance of good diet and regular exercise
• second, a brave politician needs to push vested interests aside and deal with the problems caused by tobacco, the over-influence of fast-food chains on eating habits and poor or misleading food labelling
• third (and this connects with my last blog entry), workplace leaders need to ensure that workers have the time to exercise, to eat properly, to sleep properly and to spend time with their families to ensure that family members do the same
• fourth, we need to get people out of their cars and walking or on bicycles. These activities need to be safe, so more needs to be spent on a highways infrastructure that can support healthier alternatives to getting behind the wheel
• fifth, the medical profession needs to harness new technologies and effective practises to take some of the cost out of care.

By the way, I know that this is a big and intractable problem. And I know that what I have set out above is probably over-simplified and perhaps sounds glib.

And I acknowledge that there are probably good arguments for different strategies.

Leadership is badly needed, however. No one can argue with that.

Or can you?

Tags: bicycles blog entry eating habits european countries expenditure accounts family members fast food chains food labeling good arguments government spending health bill health expenditure high priority highways intractable problem key areas medical profession obamacare politician stumbling block tax dollars
 

What characterizes the macho leadership style so often adopted in today’s corporate, political and social worlds?

Well, first up is the leader’s ‘I am right, you are wrong’ approach. Here the leader bends facts to suit his argument, regards knowledge as power and so shares this only with allies… and dismisses even the most well-constructed arguments for his own approach.

Secondly, there’s the ‘you’re like me so I like you’ approach. The leader gives preference to people with similar traits while maintaining an intolerance to different personality types.

‘Do as I say, not as I do’ is our third characteristic. The leader demands all shoulders to the wheel while frequently taking his cronies and customers or clients he likes to the golf course. And he will happily burst in uninvited to your meeting but heaven help you if you do that to his.

‘Self-rewarding at the expense of others’ is our fourth trait. The bonus pot gets weighted towards the leader and his closest associates and not to the staff who made any success happen.

Number five? Macho leaders will not want to reverse a decision they have taken no matter how cogent the arguments are for selection of reverse gear.

And of course, there’s the macho leader’s general behavior. He will have perfected talking over you, drowning a discussion in corporate speak and preferring the view of consultants to those more home grown. He’ll jump the queue in the canteen, chase you hard for the response to an email (and yet be curiously unresponsive to yours). And he will berate you for a perceived misdemeanor in front of your peers rather than taking you to one side.

‘His’, ‘he’… yes the above has a masculine bias given the traditional meaning of macho. And yet the macho school of leadership is not the sole province of men. Remember the ‘iron lady’ who ‘was not for turning’? ^* See characteristic number 5 above.

Oh—and in case you’re still wondering…
macho leadership is not my recommended style.

^*Former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Tags: allies bias canteen characteristic number closest associates corporate speak cronies different personality types email golf course iron lady leadership style margaret thatcher misdemeanor peers preference prime minister queue shoulders sole province
 

I have a strong piece of advice for anyone in a management or leadership position—or someone who hopes to be.

Watch your mouth!

Take former Massachusetts governor and now Republican Party presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s recent visit to London. On the day he arrived he said of the London event that ‘There are a few things that were disconcerting’. This put something of a cloud over his meeting with UK Prime Minister David Cameron later that day. And another cloud threatened when he seemed to forget the UK Opposition party leader’s (Ed Milliband) name, calling him ‘Mr Leader’.

In the interest of political balance, President Barack Obama recently offended America’s self-made by saying, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” He meant that there’s a network of folk—from parents through to teachers through to staff who contribute to an individual’s success… but many did not interpret the remarks that way.

Some leadership gaffes become so notorious that the protagonists name becomes a by-word for verbal faux-pas. Take Gerald Ratner—former Chief Executive of the major British jewelry company, Ratners Group.

Gerald achieved fame (or shall we say, infamy) when he jokingly put down his own company’s products. During a speech he said:

“People say, “How can you sell this for such a low price?”. I say, “because it’s total crap.”

The value of the Ratner Group fell by £0.5bn after Gerald uttered those last four words. And the phrase ‘Doing a Ratner’ now covers any corporate manager’s negative and self-damaging outpourings about his company’s brand and image.

Want more? Google ‘leadership gaffes’ and have hours of entertainment.

And while you’re doing that make a private mental note to always pass comment in an informed and considered way—so that outcomes are always positive.

Tags: barack Obama chief executive david cameron gerald ratner google infamy jewelry company leadership position london event massachusetts governor minister david mitt romney opposition party leader piece of advice political balance president barack obama presidential candidate prime minister ratners republican party so notorious
 

Occasionally this blog lifts its head and looks at a global issue that needs leadership if it is to be resolved.

Ask anyone for the major dilemmas facing our planet and they will probably cite water and food shortage problems, reliance on fossil fuels, global warming and environmental issues and—perhaps—the difficulties governments face maintaining economies based on growth when the number of jobs falls short of requirements and there are insufficient taxes pouring into national treasuries as a result.

All of which—in my view—are related to a very central issue. Population growth.

A quick fact and a quick forecast: the world’s population reached 7 billion (7,000,000,000) in October 2011. It is expected to grow by 50% (a further 3.5 billion or 3,500,000,000) by 2050.

It’s clearly a big (very big) problem for all of us so you’d expect world leaders to be prepared for a lively debate on the subject when the United Nations hold a summit (as they did at the end of June) on global sustainable development.

They weren’t prepared however. They didn’t have to be.

That’s because reproductive health (family planning) wasn’t on the agenda. That’s despite the 215 million women in the world with no access to modern contraception.

Why is this—the most important subject—being brushed under the carpet? Because it’s difficult. Because it arouses strong opinions. Because some see intervention as contravening human rights. And because population control has had a chequered history with some serious abuses.

Leadership is about many things—but it’s especially about tackling the most problematic issues… going where angels fear to tread.

That will be as true for you in your company as for any world leader right now. You know there are issues which you must engage with at some point.

There’s no time like the present.

Tags: chequered history contraception environmental issues food shortage fossil fuels global issue global sustainable development global warming health family lively debate many things population control population growth problematic issues reproductive health strong opinions treasuries women in the world world leader world leaders
 

Question.

Does leadership include moral responsibility?

Let me explain what I mean by that, using examples.

• Example one.
  Lead generation is working really well, with sales and turnover up. Then you discover that your Marketing people are riding roughshod over Data Protection legislation, cold-calling people late at night and continuing to mail and e-shot people who have opted out of both media.
  Do you put a stop to these practices—or do you kill that goose even if it’s laying golden eggs?
  
  
• Example two.
  Your bank has underperformed. Massively. So badly, in fact, that national government has had to intervene with public money to bail your business out of the mess it’s in. Yet you’re still entitled to a massive bonus.
  Do you cry all the way to the bank—or refuse the bonus?
  
  
• Example three.
  You’re a politician. You’ve seen how you can use the expenses system to subsidise your lifestyle and just about stay on the right side of the rules.
  Do you ‘enjoy all the benefits’ or remain scrupulous, claiming only for those elements relating to your core job?
  
  
• Example four.
  You’re the boss of a top-flight cycling team who’s just discovered that doping among team members is rife.
  Do you turn a blind eye—or turn the culprits over to the authorities?

Although hypothetical examples, I have drawn on actual events to produce the above. And I could probably cite hundreds more.

My point is that leadership and morality cannot be divorced from one another. When you assume a senior position (in whatever private or public capacity) you assume responsibility for taking a proper moral view of every action you take and every action taken by those you lead. Even if that view adversely affects the bottom line.

If you don’t, you’re not only doing your self-respect a disservice, you’re running a legal risk, corrupting your people and reinforcing the lack of moral compass we increasingly see right across the world.

Sounds a bit pompous?
Well… sorry… but I feel morally obliged to say it.

Tags: bank blind eye culprits cycling team disservice golden eggs hypothetical examples late at night lead generation legal risk moral compass moral responsibility moral view morality national government politician protection legislation public money self respect team members top flight
 

What did Winston Churchill, Horatio Nelson and Abraham Lincoln all have in common?

Asymmetry.

Let me explain. Two studies* carried out at Aston University in Birmingham in the UK were expected to confirm the commonly held view that more attractive people (whom they termed ’symmetrical’) tend to make better leaders because they are perceived to be more dominant and more intelligent.

In one study, 80 volunteers were assessed for their leadership qualities via psychometric tests. In the other, 42 students were separated into teams, with each team electing a leader to carry out a task.

The outcome? Well, the performance of the team with asymmetrically featured leaders was independently rated 20&perc; higher than those with symmetrical leaders, with team members also rating asymmetrically featured leaders more highly.

This unexpected correlation between those with a less favored appearance and leadership performance astonished the research team. They’ve since hypothesized that people who are asymmetrical have to compensate more for their appearance and this increased effort comes through in better organizational ability and leadership qualities.

In their conclusions, the researchers termed the asymmetrical leaders approach ‘transformational’ leadership. This includes getting people to co-operate and inspiring them to willingly achieve a common purpose. They also contrasted this with the type of leadership so often criticized in this blog (more dictatorial and based on fear of retribution for failure).

My view. Well, I’m relieved to see the view debunked that better looking people make better leaders. I cannot, however, see the measurements used in the study to determine symmetry (including finger length, wrist width and ear length) going over that well at interviews!


*Research conducted by a team led by Dr Carl Senior. The results have been published in the Harvard Business Review.
Tags: abraham lincoln asymmetry common purpose conclusions correlation dr carl ear length finger length harvard business review horatio nelson leadership performance leadership qualities measurements organizational ability psychometric tests retribution symmetry team members volunteers winston churchill
 

A 111 point questionnaire designed by Dr Paul Babiak in conjunction with The University of British Columbia’s Professor Bob Hare has sought to determine how many industry bosses were psychopaths.

They found that nearly 4% fitted the profile.

‘So what?‘ you might ask.

Well, apparently only 1% of the general population usually fits the typical psychopath profile. Industry leaders therefore have an unusually high incidence of psychopaths among their numbers.

The industry psychopaths identified weren’t middle-management either but included vice-presidents, directors and CEOs.

The psychopathic leaders in question turned out to be not that good as managers. But they could switch on behaviours as required—charm, manipulation, intimidation—to suit situations and to support their climb up the corporate ladder.

Dr Babiak has said of the report’s findings… ‘Take that <psychopath’s> charm and couch it in the right business language and it sounds like charismatic leadership’.

This all brings me, yet again, to a point previously made in this blog. Is yours an individual-centric, corporate culture that rewards insensitive, aggressive or over assertive, tough-guy, short-termist behaviour in your senior team because of the way the company’s objectives and individual targets are set?

If so, you can bet that you’re storing up big problems for the future, not least because your workforce are intimidated and miserable… and therefore, ipso facto, increasingly de-motivated.

Tags: behaviours business language ceos charismatic leadership corporate culture corporate ladder dr babiak industry leaders intimidation manipulation middle management paul babiak point questionnaire professor bob hare profile industry psychopath tough guy university of british columbia vice presidents workforce
 

I am often asked what makes a good leader.

People expect me to run through a series of desirable leadership attributes in reply. And I do.

I say that a good leader needs to want that role. They need to look forward to going to it on a Monday morning. They need to go to it with a care for others but not caring what others think. They need to have a big picture in their head about what their company or school or country will look like in the medium to long term. And they need to develop and implement strategies to get there, taking others along with them and enlisting their support in achieving their vision.

But that’s only part of the picture.

Look… I’m thinking about using the word ‘luck’ here—and that term’s a bit of a taboo for leadership consultants because people prefer to talk about good leaders spotting the right opportunities and seizing them. Which is about judgment and not luck, right?

But there is an element of luck in leadership. There have been potentially good leaders who aren’t recognized as such because cultural, political, socio-economic, health, family issues and a host of other factors conspired against them. And, conversely, there have been perhaps average leaders who have had greatness thrust upon them because all of the elements I outlined above came together just right for their period of tenure.

All of which is not to say that a leader cannot exercise choice. So I say this to anyone with the desirable leadership attributes I outlined at the beginning of this blog entry. If you’re unlucky enough to find that the circumstances you’re in do not allow you to shine in the ways you know you can—and despite your best efforts you cannot change this—then get out and find a better environment in which to deploy your talents.

You owe that to yourself. And knowing when to jump to another ship is probably the most important leadership quality of all.

Tags: best efforts big picture blog entry circumstances economic health element exercise choice family good leaders greatness health judgment leadership attributes leadership quality monday morning reply taboo talents tenure using the word what makes a good leader