DOING WHAT WE WERE MEANT TO DO

Any discussion about leadership and how natural-born leaders respond to leadership challenges must start with an understanding that to be really good at something we must possess the corresponding level of innate talent. Within our unique set of inherited talents, we have the ability to excel at these activities, but because each person is unique, everyone cannot excel at everything. We don't like to face this truth, because we were raised believing that if we want something badly enough, are willing to work hard to get it, and receive training or coaching in the subject, then we can be anything we want to be. This is a false dream. Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state, said, "That's what you really have to look for in life, something that you like and something that you think you're pretty good at. And if you can put these two things together, then you're on the right track and just drive on." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, a German statesman and writer, also said regarding this topic, "The person born with a talent they are meant to use will find their greatest happiness in using it." In other words, do what you are passionate about and good at, and that will allow your natural talents to express themselves.

Consider the women and men who represent their countries in the Olympics. For everyone who competes, there are thousands of competitors who do not have the level of talent required to make the final cut and win the right to compete in the Olympics. Those women and men who are unsuccessful in the preliminary competitions have the desire, commitment, and training, but at some level of competition they fell short, while others who possess more talent made it to the Olympics. Further, out of all those who represent their countries, only an elite few actually win medals.

The Olympics is just one example among many where some individuals have their dreams and aspirations realized, but the cold, hard reality is that most do not; they simply run out of talent at some lower level of competition. An argument can be made that injuries play a role or one coach may be a little better than another, but that does not change the overall conclusion that talent and the degree to which a person possesses it are the determining factors in how accomplished that person will be in a particular activity.

Likewise with leadership, heredity bestows upon us none, some, or a high degree of leadership talent. We need to do a good self-examination of our own talents and stop kidding ourselves that we can do or be anything we want. Instead, we must look inward and aim to discover what talents we actually possess. Good leaders know that the more we can align our careers, lives, or some aspect of them with the talents with which we were born, the more content and successful we will become, because we will be doing something we were meant to do — what we were born to do. We won't turn into intolerable bosses who clearly lack the innate leadership talent to be good leaders. But if we insist that gurus and formulas can make us all into leaders, then we will continue to mass-produce nonleaders who will not answer this nation's call for real leadership.

GOOD LEADERSHIP DRIVES AN IMPERFECT DECISION

Good leaders in all segments of American society recognize that they have a responsibility to establish an environment and culture that become the generators of invention, innovation, and informed decision making. Good leaders don't just make decisions; they make decisions better. Good leaders are the catalysts who bring divergent points of view to the table for discussion, who ensure that all interests are represented, and who define the issues and set the parameters for the decisions to be formulated. From this crucible, there will emerge the ingredients for an informed, collaborative decision. How these ingredients are blended together by the leader is an art and will ultimately determine if a consensus can be reached.

Good leaders understand that each person or group supports their own "perfect" proposals on the issues and will argue for adoption with only minor modifications. They believe that their proposals represent the perfect solution, the right decision. Good leaders realize that any absolutist stance is the precursor of gridlock and paralysis. It takes skillful leaders to restate the objective and convince everyone that there are no perfect plans or decisions. The real question is how much "imperfection" is each person or group willing to accept. How much compromise is everyone willing to engage in to put the good of the many above the good of the few? The role of the leader is to work with all involved to find the point that balances cold reality with the impassioned idealism of any proclaimed perfect decision. Of paramount importance is that leaders must thoroughly review the competing "perfect" proposals and make the difficult, clear-cut decisions required to move the organization and the country forward. Failure to do this will perpetuate internal squabbling and encourage opponents to find ways to scuttle the entire process, consciously or subconsciously.

When dialogue and debate fail to bring consensus, the leader must take command and reinvigorate the process with a sense of urgency to drive to the best possible imperfect decision for the greater good. This applies to government, business, finance, and so forth. Democracy is by its very nature chaotic and imperfect, as it struggles to respect and consider all opinions and options. Doing nothing is not an option in a world that is constantly changing and generating new and increasingly complex issues that good leaders must deal with if America is to remain strong.

EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ARE CHARACTERIZED BY COMPROMISE AND MOVING FORWARD

As a director of human resources, I participated in a variety of negotiations. These experiences taught me that there are certain procedures or protocols that, if followed, will increase the likelihood of reaching an agreement. In general, constructive and disciplined negotiations can assist in keeping everyone focused on finding ways to work together to create win-win solutions.

• To be successful, negotiators on both sides must clearly understand the impact on the organizations and the people they represent if the negotiators fail to reach an agreement. When negotiating, winning cannot become more important than agreeing.

• It is critical that both sides in a negotiation agree on a definition of the issues and the scope of the negotiations. Without agreement on these points, personal agendas typically take over the negotiations.

• Publicly professing rigid ideologies and proposals prior to and during negotiations leaves little room for any kind of meaningful dialogue and compromise on the issues. The negotiating table is no place to espouse a take-it-or-leave-it agenda.

• Everything cannot be a must-have win for one side at the negotiating table. All negotiators must embrace a willingness to compromise or else win-win solutions will not materialize.

• Both sides presenting a partisan assessment on how the negotiations are proceeding to the public or in a daily update is not conducive to building trust between the negotiating officials. It is counterproductive to publicly attack the person or persons with whom you are negotiating. Openly condemning each other builds resentment and makes it harder to reach an agreement.

• The final outcome should not be a victory for one group and a defeat for the other. For negotiations to be successful and lasting, both parties must have obtained something that was important to them and their respective constituents. A slam dunk by one side over the other will only breed animosity and a desire for retribution. At the next negotiating session it will be much more difficult to fashion an agreement.

America needs good leaders who are capable of recognizing that the way forward is through win-win compromise. If we cannot sincerely negotiate in good faith via compromise, then we jeopardize the well-being of our government and business community, and we will suffer the consequences of allowing the interests of the few to override the interests of the many, not only in negotiations but in everything we do.

SEVEN WORDS THAT CAN RUIN ANY ORGANIZATION

The seven words that will make any good leader cringe are "But we've always done it that way." These words are especially debilitating to an organization, because they sap the innovation and initiative out of a workforce. But what's most important and disturbing is that the people who say these words are actually mirroring the attitude of their leaders . A workforce is a reflection of its leadership, or, put another way, leadership gets the workforce it deserves.

Consequently, when a good leader takes over an organization and hears these dreadful seven words emanating from the workforce, he or she will recognize that the people are simply parroting the words, actions, and inactions of the previous leadership. Such organizations and workforces have been mired in a poor leadership–induced, static environment where innovation and initiative are often discouraged or at the very least ignored. Maintaining the status quo, whether consciously or unconsciously, is the standard of poor leadership. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is typically the mantra of poor leaders.

To eradicate the words "But we've always done it that way" and the mind-set they represent, good leaders must first reorient the leadership of an organization to understand that they now live in a world that is changing at an exponential rate and that leaders and workforces must change and adapt to stay relevant and "open for business." Often the organization's top leaders rush out to hold employee meetings in an attempt to convince the workforce of the need to change before they first obtain the buy-in of their own subordinate leaders.

While the workforce may sense the need to change, it's leadership that must drive the change and get the organization moving again and focused on the need to do things differently. Good leaders must alter the environment and culture within which their workforces function to induce the desired change in behavior or conduct. However, any change in a workforce will be temporary and fleeting until the employees see that their leaders have completely adopted the new direction in attitude, word, and deed. Only then will the seven words and their destructive way of thinking be eradicated.

GOOD LEADERS ARE NOT CONSTRAINED BY THE FACTS

According to the dictionary, a fact is a statement of truth. However, the truth about a particular thing or circumstance can change and thus change the facts. John F. Kennedy once said, "Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." And his brother Robert F. Kennedy said, "There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why ... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not." Both of these men knew that most people see the world as it is, but good leaders see the world as it could be.

Opinions, perspectives, and beliefs constantly change, and good leaders must be able to see beyond the facts of the past and the present and create a new future based on new realities. The existence of the Berlin Wall and the Communist Soviet Union were once facts, but no more. Once man could only peer at the sky and speculate; now we've traveled to the moon and beyond, discovering new truths, new facts. Real leaders are not content with being bound by yesterday's and today's realities.

To stay vibrant and competitive, businesses, governments, and nations must be challenged to move forward with a purpose, to evolve, and to continually reengineer themselves. A team, an organization, and a country will have a tendency to remain at rest until a force, a good leader, comes along to jump-start them and, by sheer force of will, get them moving again. The laws of physics applies to human beings and nations. Once moving, good leaders will drive the changes needed to maintain the momentum, and in the process they will be creating new perspectives and facts; from a candle to electricity, from a telegraph to an iPhone, the change in reality is immense.

On the other hand, poor leaders will allow themselves to be held captive by the facts of the past and present and thereby lock themselves into a particular paradigm or perspective. Poor leaders work within the current system of facts; good leaders change the system and create new facts, new realities. Poor leaders remain at rest; good leaders realize that if you rest you rust.

ORGANIZATION CHARTS INSTITUTE HIERARCHY AND CONTROL AT A PRICE

The use of organization charts in government offices and businesses is widespread. These charts are intended to represent and display an organization's formal management hierarchy or chain of command and define the authorized flow of communications up and down this hierarchy. The larger the organization, the more levels will be identified on these organization charts. Many of these organization charts typically have four or more levels encompassing supervisors, managers, and executives, all with a corresponding set of organizational job titles. This pyramid-like superstructure is installed over the workforce.

While this concept of operation will definitely ensure management control of work and people, good leaders understand that there are a multitude of problems associated with operating under the weight of these hierarchal structures:

• Each layer of managers has a tendency to filter the communications going up the chain of command to put themselves in the best light and also place their own spin on communications coming down the chain.

• Management officials typically believe that passing problem cases or policy issues to their bosses for discussion or resolution will reflect poorly on them. Consequently, there is a natural inclination by managers to procrastinate on raising issues up the chain until they have been thoroughly vetted at the lower levels. This process often takes an inordinate amount of time and can negatively impact the mission of the organization.

• Adherence to the protocol of a formal hierarchy often stifles innovation and initiative from the workforce because of the multiple levels of coordination and approval required to obtain changes to policy or operating procedures. Delegations of authority are often minimal, and decision making is normally retained at the upper levels of the organization at the expense of the first-level leaders and the workforce, where the work is actually being performed.

• Over time there is a loss of a sense of urgency to deal with issues raised, and instead many managers are content with maintaining the status quo because of the difficulty of getting someone to make a decision. Even the smallest issue requires an extensive wait time for resolution.

• Risk taking is discouraged, because this implies experimenting outside of the command and control boundaries of the organization. However, what is overlooked is that the absence of risk taking locks in organizational mediocrity.

Consequently, a structure with a strong centralized decision- making apparatus comes at a high price. Good leaders will push for an organizational structure that eliminates much of middle management and thereby flattens the structures. The corresponding hierarchy will be more responsive to customer and employee needs and will balance the desire for control with initiative, risk taking, and innovation. Key decision makers need to be close to their first- line leaders and workforces to stay abreast of the fast-changing workplace and world within which organizations must operate. Good leaders recognize this need for change; poor leaders seek the status quo.

GOOD LEADERSHIP CANNOT BE CHOREOGRAPHED

For decades, leadership gurus have effectively convinced the vast majority of people that anyone can become a leader provided they have a personal desire to be a leader, a commitment to work hard to become a leader, and complete leadership training. These gurus have monopolized the field of leadership training, and they have each developed their own personal blueprints or formulas with the pledge that, if followed, the trainees will become good leaders. These step-by-step plans and formulas for success have been advocated in a multitude of leadership books, workshops, and seminars. These plans and formulas are an effort to prescribe a course of action for situations a leader may likely face. They are how-to strategies and tactics that attempt to plot each move, each step that a person in a leadership position should take to deal with a particular problem, situation, or concern.