KNOWING YOURSELF: HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL TYPE AFFECTS YOUR CAREER, YOUR RELATIONSHIPS AND YOUR LIFE

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:31:48 +0000

Sam, a Sales Manager in a marketing organisation came to see me after being appraised by his boss. Generally, his performance review was good. After all, Sam had exceeded his targets and met almost all the requirements of his job – all, that is, except for one thing. He appeared to be a loner.

Sam did not like entertaining. He avoided cocktail parties. On seminars Sam, unlike others, did not meet his colleagues in the bar afterwards.

Sam disliked small talk, and frivolous conversation bored him. He also abhorred the ribald banter that inevitably followed a drinking session. Sam was also not prone to expressing his feelings very easily.

During the performance appraisal, Sam’s boss openly expressed contempt for his apparent aloofness.

“I just don’t know how you get business”, said Sam’s manager, “and if it was not for the fact that you reach your targets every time I would have thought that you’re not cut out for sales!”

Sam argued that his job was to establish and meets his customer’s needs in the most efficient and effective manner. “I’m a no-nonsense person whom they trust. To do my job I don’t have to be a buddy, I just need to be a professional”, said Sam.

Nevertheless, Sam was told that his promotional prospects were limited because he did not measure adequately on the ‘gregarious’ scale.

When Sam came to see me he was both angry and confused. Angry, because he was getting results without recognition in the form of promotion, and confused, because when he tried to be more sociable it drained him and he didn’t how to cope with the situation. Sam began to think that something was wrong with him.

This type of scenario is played out in thousands of different ways at work, socially and at home, causing untold human misery and conflicts. These conflicts arise because people think that:

v there is one best type of personality (usually similar to one’s own);

v the type of person you are, determines how well you do your work;

v to be different is to be inferior.

All of the above are inaccurate judgements that come from ignorance about the nature or temperament of people: what is sometimes called psychological type.

“Psychological Type” is a term coined by Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung, and published in his book by that title in 1921.

Psychological type is based on the idea that people have preferred modes of behaviour. At a simple level everyone knows that some people are right-handed and others are left-handed. Some people like to exercise, others would rather not; some people enjoy being alone whilst others prefer to engage in activities involving others, and so on.

Psychological preferences focus on the fact that people are predisposed to interact with others, and the world, in different ways. For example, some people make decisions based on how they feel, whereas others make decisions on rational factors.

The key point to remember is that psychological type deals with psychological preferences only. It has nothing to do with what may be right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with competencies. It is, therefore, not judgemental in any way.

Although there are literally thousands of modes of behaviours, we are able to form an accurate assessment of overall personality by clustering preferred behaviours into four main groups, or dimensions, namely:

v actions that energize (or deplete) you;

v how you gather information;

v your natural decision-making style;

v your preferred lifestyle.

Before I go on to describe the categories and preferred behaviours of each of these dimensions, it is important to bear in mind that we are only considering four, out of many, possible dimensions. So, although we share similar attributes with people of the same type, we will still be different in other ways. This cannot typecast others and ourselves and say that one person is like every other person of the same type.

With this I mind, lets examine the dimensions of Energising, Information-gathering, Decision-making and Lifestyle to see how your preferences influence your career, relationships and life.

The Energising dimension

The first of the four scales is called the “Energising” scale and comprises two polarities called “Introversion” and “Extroversion”. This scale has to do with the focusing of attention and how people are energised (i.e. what charges or stimulates them). It is, therefore, called the Energising scale.

This may be illustrated as follows:

	Energising
Extroversion		Introversion

People who prefer Extroversion focus on the outer world of people and the environment. They are energised by activity and experience.

On the other hand, those who prefer Introversion focus more on their inner world. They like to reflect, and are energised by having the space and time to contemplate.

The Information-gathering dimension

The information-gathering dimension has to do with the way in which people acquire data. The names given to the opposite preferences on this scale are “Sensing” and “Intuition”:

	Information-gathering
Sensing		Intuition

One way people gather information is through the use of their senses. Their eyes, ears and other senses tell them what is there. Sensing people prefer to use their senses for establishing facts and interpreting the realities of a situation. They tend to be detail oriented and are realistic and practical.

The other way to deal with information is through Intuition. Intuitive people seek meanings and possibilities that go beyond what is directly available to the senses. Intuitive types value imagination and inspiration.

The Decision-making dimension

Having acquired information either intuitively or through the senses, decisions need to be made. The opposites on the decision-making scale are “Thinking” and “Feeling”:

	Decision-Making
Thinking		Feeling

People who prefer to logically weigh up the evidence to come to an objective decision are employing the Thinking function. Such types are usually good at analysing and diagnosing what is wrong with something.

The opposite preference to Thinking is Feeling. Feeling people prefer to make decisions based on how much they care and what appeals to them. Personal values are paramount. It is important to understand that the term “Feeling” does not refer to emotions but to values.

The Lifestyle dimension

This last dimension describes the lifestyle people prefer to adopt when dealing with issues. The opposites on this scale are “Judging” and “Perceiving”:

	Lifestyle
Judging		Perceiving

Those who prefer the Judging attitude tend to live in a planned, orderly way. They like to be in control of matters and they organise themselves in a structured manner. (The word “structured” defines this preference quite well.)

The other lifestyle preference is one characterised by flexibility. Thus, Perceiving people prefer to live in a spontaneous, flexible manner. They like to keep their options open and adapt to each situation as it comes up. They also seek to understand life rather than control it.

Eight possible preferences

Because each of the four dimensions have a scale with two opposite attributes, eight preferences are rated when evaluating psychological type.

These are:

Extroversion / Introversion

Sensing / Intuition

Thinking / Feeling

Judging / Perceiving

These preferences are given the following initials:

E = Extroversion

I = Introversion

S = Sensing

N = Intuition (the letter “I” has already been allocated to Introver

sion so the next letter in the name Intuition is used)

T = Thinking

F = Feeling

J = Judging

P = Perceiving

Sixteen psychological types

With eight preferences we have sixteen possible combinations of psychological type:

ESTJ

ESFJ

ESTP

ENTP

ENTJ

ENFJ

ESFP

ENFP

ISTP

ISFP

ISTJ

INTJ

INTP

INFP

ISFJ

INFJ

Establishing your psychological type

There are essentially two ways of establishing your psychological type.

Understand the meaning of dimensions and groups of preferences (i.e. E/I, S/N, T/P and J/P) and look for dominant behaviours in yourself and others to reveal psychological type. This is known as typewatching.

Complete a valid and reliable questionnaire that will indicate your psychological type. Two such instruments are: Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), and Psychological Type Indicator. The former is available only to psychologists and other certified professionals, whereas the latter is included in my book “Discover Your Psychological Type”. This can be obtained by phoning (011) 453 1733 or emailing Karen Jacobs at kjacobs@ihdynamics.co.za

Once you have ascertained your psychological type you are in a position to establish your natural preferences. With this knowledge you will be able to maximise your potential strengths and strengthen your weaknesses. Knowing about type also allows you to understand, and even cherish, different preferences found in other people. This is the essence of team development.

To help you get a bigger picture of the preferences of psychological type I have provided you with a brief summary of each of the sixteen psychological types.

Brief Description of the Sixteen Types

ESTJ

Tough-minded, practical ORGANISER. Focused and decisive; more concerned about getting results than about how people feel.

ENTJ

Confident, creative ORGANISER. Competitive and innovative; good at over-coming obstacles and generating innovative ideas.

ISTP

Quiet, practical ANALYSER. Analytical and reflective; likes to organise data to understand situations and solve practical problems.

INTP

Creative, contemplative ANALYSER. Independent thinker who enjoys using the intellect to come up with new possibilities; stimulated by intellectual challenges.

ESFJ

Practical RECONCILER. Outgoing and pragmatic. Responsible and compassionate: dislikes conflict and concerned about creating harmony and making people feel comfortable.

ENFJ

Imaginative RECONCILER. Supportive and persuasive. Encourages people to use their potential and accomplish as much as possible.

ISFP

Caring, adaptable HELPER. Reserved and sensitive to the needs of others. Shuns disagreements and likes to make the most of present moments.

INFP

Creative, committed HELPER. Reflective and innovative in finding unusual ways of serving a cause. Loyal to ideas and more interested in possibilities than practicalities.

ESTP

Gregarious, logical ADAPTOR. Resourceful, action-oriented with a passion for adventure and new challenges. Likes to solve concrete problems, impatient with theories.

ESFP

Mediator and practical ADAPTOR. Good communicator with an ability to influence others and settle disputes. Keen observer of detail.

ISTJ

Analytical ADMINISTRATOR. Meticulous and systematic. Concerned about following systematic procedures. Takes responsibility and is thorough.

ISFJ

Sympathetic ADMINISTRATOR. Sensitive and compassionate. Concerned about the welfare of others. Has a strong sense of duty and is most comfortable with practical issues.

ENTP

Imaginative STRATEGISER. Outgoing and resourceful in developing strategies to achieve goals. Dislikes routine.

ENFP

Gregarious, energetic STRATEGISER. Initiator of change. Seeks variety and individualistic expression of ideas. Anticipates the needs of others and readily offers help and encouragement.

INTJ

Independent INNOVATOR. Self confident thinker. Well organised and creative in finding solutions to problems and seeing new possibilities in everyday situations.

INFJ

Person-centred INNOVATOR. Enjoys working on issues that further the well-being and development of people. Reserved, yet compassionate and committed.

Conclusion

Psychological type is a powerful way of identifying preferences, and therefore predispositions, in eight human categories.

A knowledge of psychological type will help you to understand yourself and others. It can also explain why you, and others, are prone to certain types of behaviours.

It is important to remember that there is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’ type. People who use psychological type to form judgements about others are misusing this valuable aid.

Also bear in mind that psychological type does not reveal anything about capabilities and beliefs. One should not use psychological type to predict success or failure in any endeavour. Rather, use your knowledge to accept yourself, develop yourself, accept and encourage others, and respect the differences that exist between people.

Flexibility in Thinking is more Valuable than Rational Objectivity on its Own

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:30:59 +0000

Most managers pride themselves on being rational – of making decisions after having carefully analysed data.

However, research has shown that it is not possible to be completely objective and know all there is to know, particularly when strategies are being formulated with the future in mind. The reason is that we all have a natural tendency to see what we want to see and disregard, or distort, what does not fit our paradigms.

To err is human

Managers, like everybody else, have beliefs and perceptions about the environment in which they operate. Their knowledge, skills and prior experiences come together to create a lens through which events are interpreted.

If managers are optimistic, they will observe possibilities and feel confident about the future. If they are pessimistic, the same circumstances may be seen to be negative. Facts are interpreted in a variety of ways and only with hindsight can we know which perspective was the correct one.

Our predispositions and beliefs not only obstruct us from perceiving objective reality, they also cause what is known as selective perception.

After giving a motivational talk, people often tell me how much they value my presentation. When I probe deeper and ask what was the most meaningful part of my speech, I am sometimes told things I never said. Frequently these are things I would very much have liked to have said, but did not. And I am happy to take the credit.

On the other hand, I have sometimes been criticised for things that I did not say. When I try to correct these misconceptions, I am told that I definitely did say them and that I am in denial.

To a greater or lesser degree, we all see what we want to see. We create our realities by gathering data that give support and credence to our beliefs. Then, when conflicting evidence comes up, we either do not notice it, or we negate it.

Numerous studies of industries and companies in crises have shown that senior managers maintain a great deal of confidence in their own distorted perceptions of what was going on, despite obvious signs that things were amiss.

An example of this occurred in the watch-making industry of Switzerland. For over a century Swiss time-pieces were the hallmark of quality and accuracy. With great pride and justification, the Swiss regarded themselves as the best watch makers in the world. Their watches were mechanical masterpieces, and they were priced accordingly.

Then in the late 1970’s, electronic watches came to the fore. Pioneered by the Japanese, digital watches were relatively inexpensive and even more accurate than their Swiss counterparts.

In spite of information that was readily available, the Swiss watchmakers chose to disregard the looming threat. According to them, Japanese watches could never be compared with Swiss chronographs.

It was only after the Swiss had lost about 90% of their market that they acknowledged the world had changed. People no longer wanted expensive spring loaded, mechanical devises that required winding-up each day. So the Swiss were forced to change their ideas.

Today Switzerland has regained much ground, but the road back was difficult. Even then, the Swiss have not recovered anything like the dominant market share they once enjoyed in the watch industry.

It should be borne in mind that very few executives deliberately distort or deny facts. It’s simply that information outside their selective mindsets are not considered, or taken seriously.

John M Mezias and William H. Starbuck in a Harvard Business Review article said:

“Managers often have badly distorted pictures of their businesses and their environment. Though they receive endless data about their organisations and the markets they operate in, managers tend to focus on what is happening right now, in their specific jobs, in their specific business units, operating in very specific, competitive situations. Busy among the trees, they lose sight of the forest. They base their analysis on formal corporate documents, personal experiences, rumours, conversations during meetings, speeches by their CEOs, and other sources of varied reliability”.

I want to emphasize that no self-respecting manager will intentionally disregard pertinent information that lies outside his or her frame of reference; rather, the information is simply not noticed or believed. It is human to see what we want to see, and little else.

Since each person is prone to selective perception, and even unconscious distortion, what then is the solution?

Openness and Flexibility are the Fonts of Wisdom

To overcome the obstacles of selective perception and unconscious distortion managers need to be open to conflicting and even disagreeable data. They also need to keep in touch with, as well as listen, to people at all levels of the organisation.

Many executives, especially highly articulate, strong leaders, have an extra-ordinarily powerful influence on their followers. Subordinates frequently feel intimidated in their presence.

Consequently, though subordinates may have their own thoughts under normal circumstances, these thoughts are not expressed when the opposing ideas of the leader are known. The outcome is that the executive never gets to hear what subordinate’s think, and contradictory views or warnings on pertinent information remain unknown.

To be open and receptive to others’ ideas you need to:

i) obtain the thoughts and perspectives of others before you express your own;

ii) seek a range of divergent views, opinions and facts? And give due consideration to all of them, especially unpalatable or opposing data;

iii) take action when a clear picture emerges. Always do so in the best interests of the company.

Sometimes tough decisions and actions must be taken. Occasionally they may be opposed. But as long as decisions are based on a thorough investigation of divergent positions, as much information as possible, and as long as the well-being of the organisation is the motivating factor, it is the way to go.

Bear in mind though, that no matter how careful you are with facts, and no matter how many perspectives you take into account, you will never have complete knowledge or understanding of anything. Effective managers are aware of this phenomenon and so they are prepared to adjust their thinking, and their actions, in response to feedback and new information. This requires a willingness to admit mistakes.

In 1981 Bill Gates was quoted as saying “640k should be enough memory for anybody”. With hindsight this statement seems ludicrous. Surely a person like Bill Gates should have known better? But he didn’t.

What is important is not that Gates made a mistake. We all do. Rather, it is that he quickly admitted his error, altered his thinking, and established his empire by adapting to the changing requirements of his market.

Admitting a mistake posed no threat to Bill Gates. However, most managers today are wrapped up in their egos. They fear being wrong and endeavour to protect themselves through defensive and offensive measures aimed at covering up or justifying behaviours. Consequently, they miss valuable cues and often only wake up when the damage has been done.

Like Gates, managers need to take a pragmatic and flexible approach. We must acknowledge that being human means being imperfect. We cannot be right every time, and we will sometimes, make wrong assessments and decisions no matter how objective we may be. One of the greatest assets we bring to strategic thinking and decision-making is not total objectivity or error-free judgement, for these are illusions. Rather, it is the ability to make use of feedback and be flexible enough to change our minds whenever this is required.

Flexibility in thinking is indeed more valuable than rational objectivity on it’s own, for the reason that what seems so true and logical is often simply a belief or viewpoint that is sometimes invalidated with hindsight.

___________________________________________________________

Dr Ray Laferla, CEO of Integrated Human Dynamics, publishes articles as the one you have just read, on a monthly basis, free of charge.

To receive these free articles, please complete the attached subscription form and we will put you on the mailing list. Also visit our website www.ihdynamics.co.za for more information about IHD and for past articles.

Tel: (011) 453 1733

Fax: (011) 453 1752

Email: mbotha@ihdynamics.co.za

Five Lessons for Leaders in the 21st Century

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:30:23 +0000

A leader is someone you choose to follow to a place you wouldn’t or couldn’t go by yourself.

Components of this definition

Choice
Place you’re going to.

You can only earn the like of leader if you meet this definition in the eyes of those who look to you for leadership.

Characteristics of leaders

Coverage
Commitment
Communication
Compassion
Trust
Integrity
Inspiration

A. Build bridges to the future

Where is this place that people won’t go without a leader?

Present

Future

Followers don’t have the time to deal with the future. It is the leaders responsibility to take care of tomorrow.

Future

The story of Motorola

Focus on the future

The most important role of the leader is to recognize and secure the future.

“Few corporations are able to participate in the next wave of technology because they are blinded by the business at hand”

Edson De Castro

CEO of Data General

If you cannot see the future you cannot lead.

Paradigm Shifts

A Parading shift is understanding the drivers of fundamental change and being willing to change your thinking to accommodate these changes.

Your future will show up well before you need it and if you are not willing to be flexible and adapt it will whiz past you like the airplane did to the train.

Systems Thinking

Small actions can cause large problems over time.

Charismatic Leadership

Leaders can have a profound impact, positive or negative, on the productivity of their followers based on the style of leadership they choose to use.

Vision

“Companies with a vision do 6 x better than Non-Visionary competitors”

Jim Collins – Built to Last

SUMMARY

Five lessons:

Focus the majority of your efforts on the future.
Understand the nature of fundamental change.
Appreciate complex systems and how they work.
Examine your Leadership Style and how it affects productivity.
Create Shared vision to build bridges to the future.

Leadership is no longer about privilege, it is about responsibility.

Joel Barker

The Management / Leadership Continuum

Managing Director
Director
General Manager	Future
Manager
Supervisor	Present

Down to earth: The Problem-solving Solution

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:28:00 +0000

On 11 April 1970 an America spaceship, Apollo 13, blasted off from the Kennedy Space Centre at Cape Canaveral. Abroad were three astronauts, John Swigert, Fred Haise and Commander Jim Lovell. Their mission was a moon landing.

For two days everything went according to plan. Then, fifty-six hours into the flight, a potential disaster occurred; one that was to cause an unpredictable problem for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This problem would threaten the lives of the Apollo crew as well as the future viability of the entire space programme.

The story of Apollo 13 is one of great courage. It also demonstrates very clearly, how a seemingly insurmountable problem can be solved by people who have the will to do so.

The world first heard that something was amiss when the crackled words of Jim Lovell was heard over the wireless: “Houston, we have a problem”.

Upon learning these words, those in charge at NASA in Houston, Texas, wanted to leap into action. But first they had to get the facts. What happened?

One of the on-board oxygen tanks had exploded. This meant that, unless something was done, there would not be enough power, water or oxygen to get Apollo 13 back to earth. Because the craft was out of the earth’s gravitational pull, it could stay forever suspended in space, with three corpses inside it, a monument to the failure of its mission.

Because such an event had never before occurred, huge uncertainties existed. Decisions had to be made without precedent. Furthermore, time was at a premium. If the real issues were not addressed there would be no second chance.

Mission control, therefore, analysed the situation:

What exactly happened?
Why did an oxygen tank explode?
Was the spaceship damaged?
How much oxygen was left?
How long would the ship have power?
Could the astronauts turn the command module around to face earth?

These and many more questions were asked to get the facts and appraise the extent of the problem.

Below is a brief summary of Apollo 13’s predicament:

an explosion had destroyed a vital supply of oxygen, leaving the spaceship crippled. There was very little power left. The reason for the explosion was unknown;

the crew had only a small quantity of water and no prospect of getting more;

the remaining supply of oxygen was extremely limited;

the mechanism for filtering and removing carbon dioxide from the command module was damaged. This meant that the crew would be breathing in more and more carbon-dioxide until they finally succumbed to asphyxiation;

the explosion occurred at a point of no return. Apollo 13 was on track to the moon;

there was a navigational problem. Power was needed to steer the ship; yet adequate power was what they no longer had;

power could be conserved by lowering the temperature of the spacecraft. However, at a lower temperature, condensation would form on electrical and electronic components posing the danger of arcing extensively sensitive circuits. If this occurred it could cause a complete loss of control over the equipment in space.

The words by Jim Lovell: “We have a problem,” was no understatement. But what could be done about it? Those back in Houston considered the possibilities. Two key variables were obvious: power and oxygen. They had to consider numerous scenarios, juxta positioning these variables, making assumptions about how much power was available, where to distribute what was left, and how long the astronauts could survive in the face of a build-up of carbon monoxide. They considered various options and the consequences of each option.

In the end, the most viable option was to continue towards the moon and, at a critical point, alter the trajectory of Apollo 13 by a short power burst. This would realign the spacecraft so that, with the increased momentum of “burn,” its orbit around the moon would slingshot it back to earth. However, one miscalculation would end in disaster.

Although the above option provided the best chance of success, after all possibilities and consequences had been considered, it was by no means a sure thing. The burst, even a small one, could exhaust all the remaining power, leaving the spaceship completely depleted without energy to enter the earth’s atmosphere.

There was also the problem of water. At a minimum rate of consumption, and allowing for essential water-cooling that was required for re-entering the earth’s atmosphere it was thought that the crew could just about make it.

What about the problem of condensation and arcing when, of necessity, the temperature in the spacecraft was allowed to drop? Calculations were made and previous expeditions referred to. It was determined that there was a reasonable chance of minimal rather than extensive damage of shorting occurring. This was due to the safeguards built into the module after Apollo 1 caught fire three years earlier. NASA authorities decided to take their chances on this one.

Now, there was the problem of asphyxiation. If Lovell Swigert and Haize died there would be little point in even trying to bring Apollo 13 back to earth if, indeed this was possible.

More facts were gathered, option’s evaluated and “what if’s?” considered. Just how this problem was solved is testimony to the determination and ingenuity of those involved.

With only the materials available inside Apollo 13, NASA officials found a way out. Firstly the crew moved from the command module into the much smaller lunar module that was still attached.

Next, a way was found to improve and redirect the carbon monoxide filtering system from the command module to the lunar module. This was a huge feat, and a great deal of creativity had to be exercised in finding a workable solution with the extremely limited supply of materials. The astronauts and their colleagues also had to overcome design problems in linking the two modules, such as connecting the square opening of lithium hydroxide containers in the command vehicle with the round openings of the lunar module.

At the best of times, space travel is a risky venture when things go wrong, especially something as serious as that which happened to Apollo 13, there is a strong probability of failure. I heard a scientific commentator say, on the radio that the odds of the disabled spaceship returning to earth were greater than 100 to 1, even if the identified problems could be resolved. One tiny mistiming and all would be lost. One miscalculation and the situation would be out of control. If the power burst to sling Apollo 13 around the moon lasted too long, or too short, there was no way of compensating for the error. If the spaceship re-entered the earth’s atmosphere at the wrong angle it would be burned up. If the angle was too shallow it could skim off into space again. Alignment was critical.

Flight Director Gerald Griffin in his book “Apollo Expeditions to the Moon” talks of the stress and tension that remained with him until splashdown: “Some years later, when I went back to the log and looked up that mission, my writing was almost illegible I was so damned nervous.”

Looking back to Apollo 13 we all know what happened. Against incredible odds, the three astronauts made it. Furthermore the explosion, decisions and solutions all contributed to a better understanding of the dangers of space flight, of safeguards and rescue procedures and of the power of teamwork.

What is not often thought of, however, is the efficient manner in which problems were solved. Decision-makers followed a structured and systematic method of addressing the potential catastrophe. So, apart from Apollo 13 being an exciting story, what can we learn from it?

First of all, when the proverbial hit the fan nobody panicked. The situation was appraised from every angle, data obtained and the facts ascertained. Too often, when something goes wrong the person in charge makes a quick decision based on a superficial knowledge and cursory examination of the data. Very often the apparent problem is not the real problem. Don’t jump to conclusions. Take the time and trouble to get as much information as possible, from all perspectives.

Next, set an objective, what is it that you want to achieve? Of course, the objective can only be based on what is possible, given the facts.

Third, consider the options, think of all possible alternatives and don’t be afraid to be creative. The solution may not be in the way things have been done in the past. In the case of Apollo 13 there was no precedent. In the situations you and I face we may, too easily, rely on past solutions when there is a better one.

Fourth, weigh up the consequences of pursuing each option. And don’t simply think of the here-and-now. What about future consequences?

Finally, a decision must be made, the best decision well, of course, be the one that resolves the problem in the most advantageous manner for all concerned.

There we have it: a five part process that will make an enormous difference to our businesses and our lives, if applied. The most successful companies are those that are best at learning, at solving problems, so too, are the most successful people.

Solving Major Corporate Problems with Cheetah Teams

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:27:34 +0000

In recent years, more and more emphasis has been placed on strategic decisions being made by groups of people rather than individuals. The idea of group decision-making is that problems are best solved by harnessing the creative capacity of many minds who are capable of viewing the problem, and its solutions, from several different perspectives.

In other words, the intellectual capacity of many people working on a problem is far superior to that of any one person, no matter how brilliant that person may be.

Group problem-solving also has other advantages: there is an understanding of the issues by all those involved; bonding takes place between group members through the communication processes of disclosure and feedback; there is commitment to the decisions made by all who took part in it.

As great as these benefits are, however, there are also disadvantages, such as the time it takes for a group to get consensus and the lack of individual accountability.

Thus, if the problem is not solved and, with hindsight, the decision proves to be wanting, the leader could quite easily divert responsibility by saying that it was a group decision and not his or hers.

This situation is typical in politics. For example, it was recently alleged, in the South African press, that the ANC government acted negligently, and that corruption was evident, in the so-called “arms scandal”. When asked to account for some of the decisions made, the Minister of Safety and Security said that decisions were taken by a top level committee and that he, therefore, could not be held personally accountable for any decision.

To overcome some of the weaknesses of group problem-solving, yet retain its advantages, a new practice is emerging that decisively, and with great impact, solves major corporate problems. This practice is applied by a “Cheetah Team”.

A Cheetah Team is a small, powerful and elite unit that is given specific responsibility for resolving a pressing production, technical, marketing or financial problems that is of strategic importance. This team comprises a select group of people who have been temporarily removed from their mainstream activities for the duration of the project.

A Cheetah Team is characterised by five attributes, It:

comprises a group of select people who are best qualified to address the issue to hand;

is project centred, having been established to fulfill a specific mission. Immediately the goal of the project has been attained the team is dissolved;

commits its members to focus on a problem without diversion. Members are employed “full-time” to resolve the problem;

makes the team fully accountable for achieving it’s objective within a designated time frame;

is sponsored by top management with the authority to do whatever it takes to solve the problem.

The Cheetah Team is, therefore, an action-oriented, short-term specially convened group, for resolving major problems. To understand how a Cheetah Team works in practice let us examine a case in point.

It is well known that pharmaceutical companies often working against the clock to research, develop and market drugs that provide relief and, if possible, cures for ailments and diseases that plague humankind. Because of the easy access to information, the progressive nature of advancements (progress is usually made by building on previous discoveries), and intense competition, several drug companies often work on similar medications that have wide appeal in a bid to patent and distribute their product before competitors launch alternative drugs. Thus the quicker pharmaceutical companies can get their products to the market place, the greater the competitive advantage.

In the case under review, *Smart Pharmaceuticals had fast tracked a new high potential product that was also being worked on by a competitor. Market intelligence told Smart that they had a three-month lead on their rivals. This meant that if they could introduce their new medication with massive publicity and promotion, their product could become the brand name inextricably linked with the solution for the ailment it addressed. Rather like Prozac has become the drug of choice for depression even though there are now other drugs that do the same thing.

Just as Smart Pharmaceuticals was about to launch the product, their greatest fear was realised. A report came in from an independent clinical trial, suggesting that the drug had some side effects that were dangerous in a tiny sample of the population tested. Furthermore, a copy of this report was sent to the authorities in a bid to delay the drug’s release.

Smart Pharmaceuticals were in a quandary. The knew that any delay would end up ceding an important market to their competition – a situation that would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

The CEO felt that this problem was of such great significance that he needed expert advice. He called in outside consultants who suggested the use of a Cheetah Team whose sole objective would be to eliminate whatever obstacles stood in the way of getting Smart’s product launched ahead of their competitor, with a sufficient lead time to establish themselves in the market.

The composition of the Cheetah Team was an interesting one. Of course, there were the usual scientists and technical people (that had detailed knowledge of the drug in question), but the team also comprised marketing experts and even someone who was knowledgeable in the many facets of corporate espionage.

At first the solution seemed apparent: extend clinical trials as quickly as possible to establish that the disputed side effects were of little consequence in the overall scheme of things, especially when one considers the drug’s benefits to the vast majority of it’s target population.

After probing the issue and discussing this option at length, the Cheetah Team decided that additional research would not solve the problem. Even the quickest extension of clinical trials would allow the competitor in.

What the Cheetah Team did conclude, however, was that the alleged side-effects that were threatening the launch were not verified by other trials and that their importance, even if true, were given exaggerated significance. This conclusion posed the following possibilities:

the trial in question may have been handled differently to others and therefore was not fully representative;
some clinicians may have felt, for reasons of their own, they wanted still more, research even though the trials already conducted had proved the drugs effectiveness. To this end they greatly exaggerated minimal, and limited, side effects;
there may have been a deliberate attempt to delay the launch of the drug.

With these three scenarios in mind the Cheetah Team leaped into action. Specific objectives and programmes were developed to address all possibilities. Furthermore, production of the drug and all preparatory work for its release and promotion were put into place. This meant that the drug would be ready for launching as soon as it had the approval of the authorities.

For the next month, team members worked tirelessly in relentless pursuit of their goals. Intensive investigations were conducted that sometimes included outside agencies.

Thirty two days after the creation of the Cheetah Team, their work was done and the team disbanded. The team found that Smart’s competitors had obtained inside information about the drug and its progress. To delay the launch of the product, high-level independent clinical researchers were paid large sums of money to distort data that came in from a specific trial. Furthermore, two influential people in the authorising agency had also been bribed to delay approval.

It is interesting to note that this case never went to court. A legal challenge would have set back proceedings by a year or more, thereby playing into the hands of Smart’s devious competitors. Instead, the Cheetah Team agreed not to release its findings to the media and not to press charges against corrupt officials, as long as the falsified data was removed from trial reports and due process was properly executed for the approval of the drug. This was done.

The drug was released and Smart was able to entrench it solidly before their adversary released an alternative product.

Fast and effective problem solving can save a project from a disastrous outcome, just as it did in the Smart Pharmaceutical case. Because Cheetah Team members focus on overcoming the problem, to the exclusion of carrying out their normal duties, amazing results can be achieved.

Cheetah Teams are, however, not to be used for everyday matters. If they are sparingly and appropriately employed to solve only major problems, they can be incredibly effective.

*Not the real name

Characteristics of a High Performance Team

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:26:37 +0000

One of the factors that separate outstanding companies from those that are average or mediocre is teamwork. Quite simply, wherever you find people who collaborate with one another, who support one another, who are committed to one another, and who are intent on placing best interests of the group ahead of their own vested interests, you will find a team of people who get results that are far superior to those groups who do not have these attributes.

The benefits of teamwork are obvious to anyone who is prepared to give the matter even some thought. Yet how do we get a group of people to work together in a spirit of co-operation so that the well-being of the group is the prime consideration of every team member?

To answer this question, some have advocated communal, outdoor activities such as river rafting, abseiling, nature trails, etc. I have participated in many of these and I enjoy them immensely. However, in my experience, while they are a wonderful form of recreation, they seldom having any long term effect in improving overall team performance. If, for example, the team was a dysfunctional one before the outdoor intervention, it will probably still be a dysfunctional team after the event.

So, how do leaders go about creating high performance teamwork? Perhaps the best way is to contrast the workings of teams that do not consistently achieve outstanding results (to see what we can learn from them) with those that are highly effective.

In this regard, Lencioni has spent years studying the reasons why teams fail to get their act together. He published his findings in a book entitled “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”.

The first dysfunction is absence of trust between colleagues. Essentially this means that people feel insecure and threatened. They are unwilling to be open and genuine with one another for fear of being manipulated, ridiculed and even abused.

Without trust the second dysfunction will emerge. This occurs when people are unwilling to collaborate with one another or when they readily comply out of fear. Instead, they create facades and resort to guarded comments and feigned agreement even when different views are upheld. A lack of collaboration and authentic interaction results in a lack of commitment, which is the third dysfunction. In this scenario team members fail to support decisions either by being apathetic or by expressing covert disapproval.

Because of a lack of commitment team members are likely to succumb to the fourth dysfunction, avoidance of accountability. When things go wrong, or opportunities bungled, team members are inclined to shift blame or make excuses. They also disregard below standard performance, and fail to call on peers to account for actions and behaviours that negatively affect the well being of the team.

The fifth and last dysfunction is inattention to results. At this stage people place their individual needs and goals above the best interests of the team.

Patric Lencioni has given us an understanding of the factors that inhibit or destroy teamwork. By taking these dysfunctions and applying their opposites, we get the five characteristics of highly effective teams.

To validate whether the antithesis of the dysfunctions are indeed characteristics of high performance teams, I applied the reverse of Lencioni’s model to many teams in all walks of life, including sports’ teams, business teams, church teams, project teams, etc. In every case I found that the five characteristics were highly applicable and an integral part of optimal performance. With this in mind we will examine each characteristic.

Characteristic #1: Trust

Trust lies at the very heart of a fully functioning, cohesive team. Without trust meaningful teamwork is not possible.

Trust, in the context of teamwork, is being able to rely one another. It is the confidence among team members that the intentions of co-workers are honourable. It is based on relationships that are open, without team members having any concerns that they will be manipulated, taken advantage of, or abused in any way.

The nature of trust is demonstrated by team members being comfortable with one another without feeling vulnerable in any way.

Genuine trust is rare in organisations. This is because there are two values, commonly upheld, that destroy trust. These are the values of ambition and competitiveness.

Although ambition is often a highly sought-after and desired characteristic in the business world, it usually destroys trust and teamwork. The reason is that ambition is typically fuelled by greed and the desire for power. When these two qualities come together in individuals, they become narcissistic and self-indulgent, placing their vested interests at the centre of behaviours and actions.

When this happens you get a highly charged, political corporate environment where people put their personal well-being ahead of the good of others, thereby destroying trust and breaking down teamwork.

Similarly, people who are highly competitive have a strong need to win, whatever the cost. Yet, if one person wins, others must lose because there can only be one winner. Consequently, when internal competitiveness occurs, people pit themselves against one another in an adversarial relationship. This is the antithesis of co-operation and teamwork.

If teamwork is to occur, personal ambitions and competitiveness must be set aside for the good of the team. The welfare of the group must always come before one’s egotistical desire to prevail as an individual. It is difficult for some people to turn off the instincts of ambition and competitiveness in the best interests of the team, but that is exactly what is required for team members to trust one another.

Characteristic # 2: The willingness to express disagreement

Weak managers fear conflict, so they avoid it. Dictators and authoritarian managers don’t want people to think for themselves, so they stifle initiatives and subdue any dissent.

Strong, effective managers build teams, where people are able to express their views and disagree without fear of ridicule or disapproval.

It is important to differentiate between destructive conflict and constructive disagreement. In the latter, team members are willing to disclose their ideas, beliefs and experiences, with the sole purpose of providing the highest quality input. There is no self-indulgence, no desire to upstage team members and no ulterior motive. Consequently, co-workers are able to have constructive debates expressing diverse perspectives. Team members may strongly disagree with proposed decisions or actions yet, at the end of it all, will bear no hard feelings towards colleagues.

Whenever a group of people come together there will always be different ways of looking at things, with contrasting opinions and even contrary experiences. The wonderful thing about teamwork is that this diversity may be used to explore issues from many perspectives. The result is healthy debate and higher quality decisions in the shortest period of time.

It is important to bear in mind that the willingness to express disagreement is contingent upon the existence of trust. Without trust people will not expose themselves or their ideas. This is why constructive dissention is built on the foundation of trust. With trust and the freedom to differ we can progress to the third characteristic, commitment.

Characteristic # 3: Commitment

To be committed is to pledge oneself whole-heartedly to a cause; in this case the goals, decisions and actions of the team and its members.

A committed team:

knows where it is going
is in touch with the needs of customers and the strategies of competitors. Consequently, they exploit advantages and neutralise threats
involves all members in strategic decision-making
faces facts honestly and does not cover-up or hid mistakes. Members regularly review progress and take remedial action whenever necessary
maintain high standards and are proud, yet never complacent, of their achievements
is comprised of members who respect and support one another (even when they disagree).

The three essential ingredients of commitment are: clarity of purpose, communication and involvement. If any of these is missing or inadequate, it will adversely affect the commitment that members have towards the goals of the organisation and one another.

Characteristic # 4: Accountability

Accountability refers to the willingness of team members to take responsibility for their own performance, as well as holding colleagues answerable for achieving agreed outcomes.

This characteristic follows the progression of the first three (trust, willingness to disagree and commitment) factors. In many ways it is the most difficult to attain as there is a natural inclination to shift blame or make excuses when things go wrong. Alternatively, when a peer has not performed, it is unpleasant to call him or her to account for this misdemeanour.

People who maintain a good working relationship are naturally reluctant to hold one another accountable for fear of jeopardising that relationship. Yet paradoxically, not addressing the issue is what ultimately breaks-down relationships because team members begin to inwardly criticise and resent one another for not fulfilling expectations.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that members of high performance teams confront one another’s non-performance, awkward as it may be. Bear in mind that the ultimate good of the team is always the prime consideration with no malicious or vengeful attacks made. People are simply expected to do what they are supposed to do and, when they don’t, colleagues make sure non-performance is respectfully and quickly, but directly addressed.

Holding one another accountable is the most efficient means of maintaining high performance standards; people do not want to fail and they do not want to be seen as wanting by colleagues. In itself peer pressure is, therefore, a highly effective way of ensuring that sustained results are achieved.

Characteristic # 5: Results-Orientation

Being achievement-oriented is crucial to success. However, when applying this factor to teamwork, it must shift from one that is individually based to one that places the collective goals of the group ahead of personal achievements. In other words the vision and objectives of the team, override any personal goals for self-aggrandisement or individual gain.

An unrelenting focus on achieving objectives agreed by the group is essential, and teams should have zero tolerance towards non-performance.

Bear in mind that financial measures should never be the only criteria. A successful team is not myopic. Team members look beyond the numbers to address the full range of key performance areas that drive a business towards its vision.

Thus problems must be tackled and accounted for, opportunities taken advantage of, internal processes and products/services constantly reviewed, high customer service levels maintained, and so on. Remember that profits, income and shareholder returns, are the result of doing many things right and it is essential for teams to address the full range issues and actions that lead to the desired outcomes.

So while financial measures are reflected in the final scorecard, a broad range of objectives (both tactical and strategic), that safeguard continuous, efficient operations, are what the team should strive for.

To be results-oriented in a balanced manner, many teams apply a process called “The Balanced Scorecard”. This is the name given by authors Nortan and Kaplan to the system of pursuing a range of balanced objectives that address all key areas of a business, and not financial aspects alone.

Conclusion

High performance teamwork never occurs by accident. It is created by the sustained efforts of leaders to genuinely obtain the support, and harness the creative power of individuals, to do what is in the best interests of all. Ultimately it comes down to consistently practicing a few, common-sense principles over time; the principles outlined in this paper.

Change of heart – the story of Stoffel van den Berg

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:25:49 +0000

This is the true story of how one man’s life was forever changed by the generous act of a loving woman who, in the presence of tragedy, gave him a chance to live.

Stoffel van den Berg was a white South African of Dutch decent. Having been brought up in an apartheid environment, Stoffel firmly believed in the politics of the South African government.

Throughout his life, Stoffel excelled at whatever he did. Being a highly disciplined and conscientious man, he always gave of his very best. He excelled in sports and was awarded his Springbok colours for the forthcoming cricket tour between England and South Africa.

Then the unthinkable happened. The English selection decided to include in the touring side, a coloured person whose name was Basil D’Olivera. Basil was previously a South African who had immigrated to the United Kingdom because of the South African government’s refusal to allow him to play first class cricket on the basis that he was not a white man.

With D’Olivera’s inclusion in the English squad the Apartheid Government made their position known; only white players would be allowed to tour their country. However, England refused to remove D’Olivera from the team and the tour was cancelled.

Stoffel was shattered by the decision and publically condemned the British. He took every opportunity to criticize the world in their opposition to apartheid, calling Western politicians liberal weaklings.

“Why don’t you come to South Africa and see for yourselves how well-off our blacks are compared to their brothers and sisters in the rest of Africa?” he said.

Stoffel was so supportive of the South African government and so passionate about the validity of separating black and white, that they used him to promote their interests. He was an eloquent and influential speaker and it was not long before the National Party asked Stoffel to stand as a candidate in the constituency of Noordhoek, a suburb of the Cape Town area.

In one of his election speeches, Stoffel van den Berg said, “I’ll go to my grave knowing apartheid must be right, for blacks as well as for whites”. The audience gave hin a standing ovation. The date was August 18, 1989.

On his way home, Stoffel was involved in a serious motor car accident. He had another engagement that night and, overtaking a slow-moving truck clipped the side of an oncoming car while swerving to avoid it. Stoffel’s car overturned and landed at the bottom of an embankment. The last thing Stoffel remembered, before waking up in hospital five weeks later, was the look of terror in the face of an oncoming driver.

Stoffel regained consciousness in the presence of his wife Inga. “What happened? Where am I?” he asked.

“You’re in hospital following an accident, and lucky to be alive,” said Inga. Later his surgeon confronted him with the fact that his heart had been damaged and had stopped beating. It was pure luck that a person had been admitted to the hospital with fatal injuries and that his heart was available for transplantation. Stoffel received the heart of this man.

“Who is this man?” demanded Stoffel.

“The donor was the driver of the other vehicle”, replied the surgeon.

“But … wasn’t he black?” cried Stoffel in shocked belief.

“Yes, he was”, confirmed his doctor. But your body won’t know the difference between a black heart and a white heart. The black man who died has given you a chance to live.

The surgeon went on to say that the wife of the dead man had agreed to donate her husband’s heart. She had said to the doctor, “I can’t see the point of both of them dying.”

Over the next few weeks Stoffel steadily improved. He pondered his life; it’s meaning and the fact that he was only alive because of the generosity of a black person. He also acknowledged that if the tables were turned, he would never have agreed to save the life a black man by giving him the heart of a white man. Such was his prejudice.

Six weeks Stoffel left the hospital a different person. As soon as he could, he asked to see the widow of the man who had died in the accident: the woman who had literally given him the chance to live. When he arrived at her home in Crossroads, a shanty town on the outskirts of Cape Town, he found a young grieving black woman with a baby in her arms.

Stoffel awkwardly thanked her and asked her how he could help. She wanted nothing.

A short while later Stoffel left the shack. “I’ve been so blind”, he said to Inga.

“Not just you”, Inga said with tears streaming down her eyes. “We all have. But what can we do about it?” she said.

“I don’t know,” replied Stoffel. “I just know that I’ve got to make amends somehow”.

Over the next few days Stoffel and Inga discussed how they were to spend the rest of their lives.

Some time after Stoffel’s visit to his benefactors he resigned his position at Barclays Bank. He cashed in his life insurances and decided, with the help of Inga, to devote the rest of his life to helping victims of apartheid – the system he had so actively promoted.

For the next four and a half years Stoffel van den Berg traveled to Crossroads every day setting up a small school where he taught English. He also staked out a cricket pitch in the veld and coached the young boys in this sport.

Stoffel and Inga took every opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the disadvantaged people who lived at Crossroads: they counseled people, visited the sick, donated money, food and provisions, and helped any way they could. In the evenings they would walk the streets trying to persuade young people then, not to resort to crime, drugs or violence. Where Stoffel had previously supported apartheid he now vigorously opposed it.

On 24 March 1994, Stoffel van den Berg died. He did not live to see the birth of the new South Africa under Nelson Mandela. Yet he had played his part in defeating apartheid.

More than 2 000 people attended the funeral of Stoffel van den Berg, many of whom had traveled great distances. What was striking though was the extent to which Stoffel experienced a change of heart: journalists could not decide whether there were more black or white people at Stoffel’s funeral.

Principles of Influence and Persuasion

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:24:41 +0000

For better or worse, we are always influencing others, others are also influencing us. The question is not whether we are influencing one another, but whether the influence is a positive one; one that is beneficial to all parties.

In this presentation I will address the matter of influence and persuasion by providing you with seven principles, and how to make them work for you.

Bear in mind that the seven principles cover the range of factors that require consideration. In specific instances, different combinations of these principles will apply, with some being more effective than others.

It is important, therefore, that you become thoroughly conversant with all seven principles. Then, apply your knowledge in an intelligent and ethical manner to create a beneficial outcome for everyone. In other words always adopt a win-win approach for a mutually satisfying outcome.

Principle # 1: Rapport Building

The Oxford Dictionary defines rapport as “a relationship marked by harmony, conformity, accord and emotional affinity”.

To the extent that we are in agreement or alignment, with another person, both verbally and nonverbally, we are in a state of rapport.

How do we build rapport? By pacing or matching, as closely and naturally as possible, the actions and behaviours of others.

There are many ways of pacing others. These include:

dress
body language
speech patterns (rate of speech, tone, volume etc.)
words and images
breathing

When we are “in-sync” with another person, we experience what they are thinking and feeling.

If therefore, you wish to build rapport with someone, align yourself and pace the other individual by reflecting the same or similar body language and way of speaking.

Principle # 2: Sequencing

The Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary defines a sequence as “a following of one thing after another”.

Ordinarily, the order in which we place things suggest a rank order, so that #1 is often perceived as bigger, better or more important than #2 and so on.

Because rank order is so ingrained in our perceptions, we naturally link situations or events with one another. Seldom, if ever, do we insolate or separate events that appear in the same context.

Because of the connections we make between items, things can appear cheap or expensive, better or worse than they really are.

The power of sequencing is expressed in what is known as the “Contrast Axiom”. This axiom says that:

“If two or more items are presented one after another, and the second is substantially different from the first, we will perceive the second item more different that it really is”.

The Contrast Axiom, which is the central tenet in the Sequencing Principle, is often used by salespeople to influence customers to buy expensive items.

How is this done? Remember that “expensive” is a relative concept. Something is expensive only to the extent that it is compared with a cheaper item. So, instead of allowing a potential customer to compare a product or service with something cheaper, salespeople deliberately present a more expensive option first, knowing that the prospect will reject it. Then, when this happens, the salesman simply comes up with another product or service that is more affordable. Now, even though the second purchase may still be expensive, it will sound and feel cheap, relative to the first option.

Principle # 3: Reciprocity

The Principle of Reciprocity states that people feel obligated to return favours.

When we give something to someone, we create a feeling of debt or obligation in that person. It is natural for anyone who has received favours to want to do something in return, to repay the debt as it were. By so doing, the obligation is cancelled.

By consistently giving outstanding service, information and concessions, beyond the call of duty, you differentiate yourself from others. You also generate a legitimate feeling of indebtedness in others that often leads to co-operation and business agreements.

Principle # 4: Uniqueness

The Principle of Uniqueness says that people desire things that are unique or difficult to obtain.

Things that are scarce are invariably more expensive than those that are plentiful; they are also more sought after. Objects become of greater value as they become less available.

Psychologically, people want what they can’t have. Financially, people are prepared to pay more, and emotionally they desire something with more intensity, if something is rare or relatively unobtainable.

People of influence harness the power of desire by highlighting the benefits of an idea, product or service. They also:

? highlight unique features

? point out what people stand to lose by going the other way.

The latter element is often overlooked. Yet the motivation to act is driven by two factors.

people act because they desire something
people act because they fear losing something.

Of these two, fear is generally the stronger motivator.

Principle # 5: Authority

The Principle of Authority says that people listen to, and obey, those who are in positions of authority. As children, all of us were dependent on authorities for survival and, guidance. Parents, teachers, doctors, religious leaders and others told us what to do, and what was acceptable. Furthermore, we have become conditioned to believe that authorities have a great deal of knowledge and that they know what is best for us; we unconsciously accept that authorities act in our best interests.

Even as adults we are frequently in awe of authority figures and give them power to influence us. For this reason people are usually willing to follow the suggestions of anyone they regard as a legitimate authority.

People of authority are invariably those who have either specialised knowledge (e.g. a teach, medical doctor etc.) or power over others (e.g. managers etc.). However, there is another type of authority that is extremely influential. What is this type of authority? It is credibility.

A person with credibility is listened to, respected and obeyed by others. Such a person will usually demonstrate two qualities:

a) expertise

b) trustworthiness

Expertise is demonstrated by coming up with solutions and solving problems in the best interests of the other person. Trustworthiness is characterised by:

? keeping promises

? reliability

? keeping confidences

? sincerity and genuineness.

These attributes need to consistently be proven over time for trust to develop and for legitimate authority to be warranted.

Principle # 6: Affection

The Principle of Affection states we are naturally influenced by people we get on well with, people we like.

The platinum rule in making friends and influencing people is to make others feel important.

To apply the Principle of Affection remember the following:

Don’t criticise, condemn and complain.
Give honest, sincere appreciation.
Be genuinely interested in others; be a good listener.
Use and remember names.
Smile.

Principle # 7: Agreement

Socrates, the Greek philosopher, is credited with originating the idea that one should ask questions, and get people to solve their own problems, rather than provide them with solutions or ideas. By making people think, through the use of questions, they gain valuable insights and knowledge. This well known technique is known as the “Socratic Method”.

What is not so well known, however, is that Socrates went beyond the mere asking of questions. He led opponents of his ideas to specific conclusions by getting a “yes” response to his enquiries. In other words, Socrates asked questions to which his opponents would have to agree. He obtained a string of “yeses” until, almost without being aware of it, his adversaries found themselves coming to a conclusion they would have previously rejected.

If a salesperson can get a potential client to agree repeatedly to the validity of a situation, or the need for certain features, or the desirability of specific benefits etc., and the product or service meets these requirements, that salesperson will find it relatively easy to get a “yes” for a sale. Such is the Principle of Agreement.

Conclusion

The seven principles of influence and persuasion constitute an extremely powerful methodology for impacting others in a positive and meaningful way. However, just as these principles may be used to enrich the lives of people, they many also be used to manipulate and take advantage of others. Men and women of integrity know that because knowledge is a source of power, such power must always be used wisely and beneficially.

With a knowledge of the seven principles, you are thus charged with the privilege of always employing them to the benefit of recipients. Never use them to exploit others. To do so will reduce you to the level of a con man/woman, or an abuser of people.

Dr Ray Laferla presents an exciting one-day experimental workshop entitled “Mastering the Art of Influence & Persuasion”. If you would like to participate in this programme, or know more about it (or other workshops) contact Michelle Botha at (011) 453 1733 or email her at mbotha@ihdynamics.co.za

Solving Major Corporate Problems with Cheetah Teams

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:22:55 +0000

In other words, the intellectual capacity of many people working on a problem is far superior to that of any one person, no matter how brilliant that person may be.

As great as these benefits are, however, there are also disadvantages, such as the time it takes for a group to get consensus and the lack of individual accountability.

A Cheetah Team is characterised by five attributes, It:

comprises a group of select people who are best qualified to address the issue to hand;

is project centred, having been established to fulfill a specific mission. Immediately the goal of the project has been attained the team is dissolved;

commits its members to focus on a problem without diversion. Members are employed “full-time” to resolve the problem;

makes the team fully accountable for achieving it’s objective within a designated time frame;

is sponsored by top management with the authority to do whatever it takes to solve the problem.

Smart Pharmaceuticals were in a quandary. The knew that any delay would end up ceding an important market to their competition – a situation that would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.

the trial in question may have been handled differently to others and therefore was not fully representative;
some clinicians may have felt, for reasons of their own, they wanted still more, research even though the trials already conducted had proved the drugs effectiveness. To this end they greatly exaggerated minimal, and limited, side effects;
there may have been a deliberate attempt to delay the launch of the drug.

For the next month, team members worked tirelessly in relentless pursuit of their goals. Intensive investigations were conducted that sometimes included outside agencies.

The drug was released and Smart was able to entrench it solidly before their adversary released an alternative product.

Cheetah Teams are, however, not to be used for everyday matters. If they are sparingly and appropriately employed to solve only major problems, they can be incredibly effective.

*Not the real name

Carpe Diem: Let People Know They Matter

admin — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:18:25 +0000

On May 5, 2003 a South African hero, and liberation icon, drew his last breath. Walter Sisulu, passed away.

Since that day, to the day of his funeral on May 17, every radio and television station that I tuned into shared anecdotes and conducted interviews with those who had known and worked with Sisulu. People told story after story of his life and his greatness.

President Mbeki described him as “an African colossus and gentle giant with unwavering humanism”. Desmond Tutu said that, “Sisulu epitomized an altruism that led him to do things for others, not for self-aggrandisement”. Nelson Mandela said that he was the greatest of all great leaders. “His greatness as a leader derived from his humility, and his ingrained belief in, and respect for, others…He was always a unifier, never a divider. Where many of us would speak a hasty word, or act in anger, he was the patient one, seeking to heal and bring together”.

And so the eulogies continued, with accolades and expressions of genuine affection and love pouring in from people from all walks and stations of life.

Initially I was awed by the tributes that cascaded through the airwaves, and I was grateful for the life Sisulu had lived. He was a model leader. However, after some time I began to experience feelings of disquiet. The more I listened to how this humble man had touched the lives of others around him, the more discouraged I felt.

At first I was confused by my feelings. Had I been triggered something that made me compare my meagre achievements with those of this great man, only to find that I was greatly wanting? I reflected on this, and thoughts came to me about others who had lived and died.

Then it hit me. I wondered whether Walter Sisulu felt appreciated while he lived. Did he really know how much he mattered? How much people valued him as a person while he was alive?

I never knew Sisulu. So I do not know the specific answers to those questions. But I do know that many millions of people live and die without ever really knowing how significant their lives were. And so they leave this world feeling failures, thinking that they have made little difference, experiencing a sense of “quiet desperation” as Henry Thoreau once put it. Yet, at their funerals, the laurels roll in. Recognition, praise and salutations are heaped upon the deceased. But they cannot hear these expressions because they are dead.

Why do we wait for somebody to pass on before we tell him how much he is valued? Why do we wait for a relationship to end before we tell her how much we love her? Why do we wait until it is too late before we recognize the outstanding qualities of a person? What good does it do to the recipient when he or she is no longer with us?

Some time ago I counselled a company director who felt that he was going downhill. He was having trouble with his health and consequently did not have the energy to apply himself in his habitual manner. He felt depressed and, at one stage, considered taking his life. Nobody ever complained about his performance and, as far as I could ascertain, my client’s managing director did not indicate that he was ever dissatisfied with his performance. Yet my client was just waiting for the “axe to fall”.

Then my client passed away. He experienced a massive heart attack. Thousands of people attended his funeral and, as always, the credits continued on and on. I sat in the church astounded. How these people venerated him. Yet he didn’t know it! He died unhappy and miserable, a wretched man in his own eyes, and all the time people respected and admired him. If only he had known! What a difference it would have made!

Has a subordinate done a good job? Then express appreciation. Do you love someone? Then tell him or her. Has someone influenced your life positively? Then acknowledge it. Has a friend gone out of his way to do something special for you? Then tell him how much that gesture means. Has someone made a difference in your life? Then send her a card, letter or email.

Don’t take people for granted. Make them feel special while you can. And it doesn’t matter whether it is your co-worker, your subordinate, your parent, your spouse, your child, your friend or anybody else. Give them expressions of appreciation, love, respect and admiration while they live, when they can enjoy and delight in receiving them.

A university professor I know once gave his MBA class an assignment. The assignment was for students to express gratitude or love to someone in the next week. It didn’t matter whether that someone was a person at work, at home or anywhere else. The only condition was that words of gratitude or love had to be specifically expressed, and they had to be genuine.

At face value this did not appear to be a difficult assignment. However, bear in mind that the group comprised almost entirely of men between the ages of 35 and 45. Furthermore, most of these men were competitive, ambitious businessmen who were uncomfortable with expressions of emotion.

A week later, at the beginning of the next class, the professor asked for feedback. Duncan shared his story.

“I was quite angry with you when you gave me this assignment. I didn’t think it had anything to do with an MBA. Anyway, I reluctantly gave it some thought and was surprised at how seldom I had said anything positive to anybody, including my staff, my wife and children”.

“The next day, in my car, it occurred to me that I hadn’t spoken to my father for several weeks. I had always admired my father. He was my role model. Yet, as far as I could remember, I had never told him how much I cared for him. So right then and there I decided to visit my father to tell him that I loved him. I felt awkward and uncomfortable, but since I had to do it, I thought that I may as well get it over with”.

“That evening my wife and I called on my father. As soon as we were seated in his lounge I took a deep breath and said, ‘Dad, I came over to tell you that I love you’.

“My dad looked at me, and tears started welling in his eyes. He stood up, reached out for me, and we hugged each other. Then he commenced sobbing. After a while he said, ‘ I love you too son but I’ve never been able to say it’.

“We were quiet for a while, then my dad continued. ‘Son, today my doctor called and told me I have cancer that has spread. He says I’ve only got a few months. I wasn’t going to say anything, but now I want you to know’. Well, I continued hugging my dad, and I cried”.

“My dad and I have always had a good relationship, but that night something happened. We reached out to one another and found each other in a very special way”.

“So my message to you in this class is this: Don’t wait to tell people you care. Don’t wait to do what needs to be done. Tomorrow might be too late. Six months from now my dad won’t be with us, but to his dying day he’ll know that he is loved by me. It’s the greatest gift I could have given him, and it’s changed my life too. Since that night I’ve told my wife I love her, I’ve told my children I love them and, although I don’t tell my staff I love them, I let them know that I value their contributions. This one assignment has affected me more profoundly than anything I have ever done”.

Life is too short to leave kind things unsaid. Genuine expressions of gratitude, encouragement and love may make all the difference in the world to someone. It will make a difference to you as well.

___________________________________________________________

Dr Ray Laferla, CEO of Integrated Human Dynamics, publishes articles as the one you have just read, on a monthly basis, free of charge.

Tel: (011) 453 1733

Fax: (011) 453 1752

Email: mbotha@ihdynamics.co.za