Brain Vs. No Brain

Several things come to mind when someone says “I’m looking for someone with brains” to the question “What are you looking for?”:

• Presuming the person is speaking about intelligence, and if one would engage them in a conversation about “the definition of intelligence”, what would they say? (“thinking out of the box” doesn’t qualify)
• That they immediately presume they are the most intelligent person in the room – which is dangerous and incredibly arrogant, especially when you are the only other person in the room
• That their perception of the world is “People are generally stupid” (which then might necessitate a philosophical discussion of what “stupid” means, if you have sufficient patience at this point)

Most importantly, whenever someone says “I’m looking for someone with brains” the thought of “lazy”, “unimaginative” and “condescending” come to mind.

And these are usually poor indicators for a future partner in any respect.

What’s that smell? Smokescreen.

Some people just need the manual.

With that they can learn to operate sophisticated machinery, concoct amazing creations and delight the world with their new found inspiration.

Some people need others to read the manual, show them the ins and outs of the machine, test the recipe a few times, make the final product, QA it for them, package and put it on the shelf with a nice description card then hand over all the credit as they slink into the shadows on their tippy-toes.

Some call the latter illustration ‘taking ownership’; the few to see through the smokescreen call it ‘insecurity’.

C.A.R.E.

Do you c.a.r.e.?

My friend who last inspired the ‘leadersh*t’ story came up with another golden nugget, but this time he gave the overused ‘acronyms for people who can’t grasp concepts’ a run for their money:

C  Cover

A  A$$

R  Retain

E  Employment

Having had to grind my teeth through another pointless acronym-overdosed, unimaginative ‘motivational’ session some months back I found this refreshing and at least, entertaining. After all, my friend is in the coaching business and this was simply fitting.

This brings me to another interesting observation this week: if you hire an architect to build your house, and by that you literally expect the guy to do it, you can’t be upset if it doesn’t quite get finished on time or if the plumbing doesn’t work. A lot goes on in the synchronisation of a project and its success hinges on the actors who prop up the sound, lights and sell the tickets. It is too easy for a customer – whether internal or external – to say “there is something wrong” but most of the time they can never quite figure out where it went wrong. This is why the gun is never given to the customer, but is usually in the hands of the architect (provided they were actually around throughout the entire project, and not having a pina colada whilst having pushed their responsibilities on to a contractor).

Several years ago I had a customer who would get into the pub early doors, for a couple of pints and light banter. John (let’s call him that) was very unassuming, hardly fussy and always had something interesting to say. In as far as I knew, the man ran several businesses one of which was a modest consultancy. During a conversation about management and running businesses, John gave me advice I’ll never forget (amongst others):

“Anyone can point out problems; people are programmed to look for faults in others, but only a good leader is able to step up to the plate and solve them.”

Inevitably you can identify problems and complain about it – but if you can find a way to solve it, you will earn respect regardless of what your title is for that day, week, month, year. Life will always present you with problems and people will always come to you with them (anyone who tells you “I hired you to do X, don’t come to me with your problems” is a prick – period) so escapism is only going to demonstrate that you either don’t have what it takes to solve it with them, or you just don’t know what to do anyway. Refusal to act reflects apathy and lack of conviction, and therein part carelessness.

So do you and your employees care?

The Leadersh*t Position

Who’s your driver today?

Boy, it has been a helluva year AND we’re still not done yet.

I have no statistics but observation alone tells me that the last quarter of the year is usually chock-full of articles related to leadership, management and strategy issues. And aptly so, when it is also the most reflective (good and bad) time of the year, before people mentally shut down for the holidays.

An associate wrote recently:

“If your team dreads coming to work because of you that’s call leadershit. If they love what they do and do it because they believe in what they do that’s call leadership. You just need to stay the heck outta their way.”

Very introspective for this time of year.

It also prompted me to think:

“If I hired a co-ordinator who didn’t book my hotels, organise the transportation, confirm the meetings, prepare the documentation and ready the pen for signing – just so as it should be – then the failure is not on the co-ordinator, but on me.

Even if the co-ordinator was incompetent, I am dumber for investing in incompetence.”

(in which I hope never, ever happens.)

This came when I thought of a metaphor recently presented about a crashing plane in relation to a failing team. To me, there is always only room for one pilot, one captain, one driver and one chieftain.

Not two, not three, not five and three quarters.

ONE.

Coincidentally, most vehicles and systems operate that way and for good reason too. You can always have a co-pilot, co-driver, co-GPS programmer or Assistant to Chief on Dinghy but you never have two wheels going at the same time – because that will inevitably, lead to a real crash.

Or clash, whichever comes first.

One driver in the cockpit, everyone else is a passenger with a function (or not). In the end, the decision lies in the driver’s hands and that includes taking the wrong turn, not re-fuelling the vehicle and not engaging the brakes on time.

Everyone else can sleep, but the driver should never sleep or take their hands off the wheel. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what gets people ‘killed’.

So who is your driver today?

Priorities

We all have some (or do we?)

As we close in on the year, we are yet again faced with several introspective, daunting tasks that all responsible adults must wrangle with:

• Christmas gifts for people whom you aren’t particularly close to, but close enough to warrant a socially-polite gift
• Who gets invited to the New Year’s Eve do (not the person who threw up in the punch bowl last year, or the potted poinsettias the year before)
• Priorities

I’m betting that Items 1 & 2 on the checklist are reasonably easy tasks (at least, in my case) only because Item 3, when executed well, usually helps with 1 &2. So by all means get to 3 first if you must.

Let’s admit it: we are all in a hurry. Nevermind that you and I have only 24 hours, but it seems as if there is just so much to do and so little time to do it. At other times, such as when you are resisting ironing or writing that overdue paper, you wonder why time just seems to slow down and become as dull as sugarless, low fat gelato.

But in all this manic rushing around the one true way to retain some form of sanity is to prioritise. The truth is we do spend quite a bit of our lives doing things on-the-go but not having a plan is almost surely going to kill us. And by that I mean, you may not be watching traffic whilst running errands and get into a nasty accident. Or drop glass on your cat. Or accidentally pour bleach into punch.

Certainly not everything is going to work out as planned, and some interesting opportunities do present themselves on occasion, which demand a little room for flexibility on our part. But that doesn’t mean we deviate from our paths. Someone recently asked “Did you find your path, or did your path find you?” I’d like to think some of us would say “Neither, I made my own path”. And that happens sometimes, and yes it is a tall order but that is part of knowing one’s priorities: is someone else consciously or subconsciously making decisions about your life, or are you putting tabs on those things? Sleeping on the wheel; that will get you killed.

Seth Godin recently wrote about choosing yourself and yes, it may have been written before but it’s certainly not a cliché. In fact it was a timely reminder about evaluating one’s purpose in life, personal goal planning and self-development. We coach people so much about their business elevator pitch, and if they have the right body language when engaging clients and if they know their USPs at their fingertips but we spend so little time developing our personal elevator pitches, understanding our own growth models or behavioural impact on relationships, both professional and personal.

We could rattle off a 42-point checklist to “What makes you a great hire?” but seem to be at a loss when asked “What makes you a good parent?” or “How have you contributed positively to the social-economic status of your neighbourhood?” or “What’s your strategic plan for being kinder to yourself?”

Why does it matter? Because we are human, and we owe it to ourselves to be introspective about who are outside of our jobs and who we are to the people who know us outside of work.

Someone once told me a story about a young man who said “My ambition is to be a manager”.

End of.

Full stop.

Manager of what? Who knows.

Things like this remind of what my father is usually inclined to say, “The one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind”. Whilst it is not wrong at all to be ambitious – because having ambition is part of self- responsibility and growth – naïveté can be deadly.

The less experienced might be heard exclaiming “I want to be a manager!” with an excitable bounce, whilst the more experienced (not just the ones with t-shirts, but holes in their t-shirts) may utter a more sober “With more authority comes more responsibility”.

Naivety may shout, hand raised up high “I can do it, I can be more responsible! I’ll report things on time! I’ll put in systems and flowcharts!”

Experience will ask “Yes, but can you be responsible for others? Can you demonstrate restraint in the face of crisis; be accountable when your team has failed and not throw people under the bus?”

There is management, and there is leadership. Real leadership at work and in our personal lives, require conviction. Conviction, at least most of the time, comes with maturity and experience. How we strategise and prioritise our roles at work, wherever we are in the hierarchy, demonstrate our capacity to lead meaningfully. That doesn’t always translate at home, but certain fundamentals remain the same – knowing where one’s boundaries are, for example, is always helpful. Being honest about one’s limitations and focusing instead on doing what you are supposed to do instead of trying something you are ill-equipped for or would be better left to someone else, is crucial to being a verifiable, respectable member of the pack, regardless of whether one is leading or following.

‘Prioritise’ is such a broad term, and I know we’ve gone through a few themes here (11 months gone, you would expect I have a few things swimming around my head!) but that’s just what it is as said in the beginning: it is introspective.

On a professional level, in particular when thinking about leadership, it is important to ask “What are the priorities of a leader and leadership?”

I was recently at a particularly well regarded executive leadership conference only to witness an executive shout “All of you should be lined up and shot!” at the front desk staff for not producing the executive’s delegate tag upon arrival. I once knew of an executive who was prone to exclaim “You should know this!” to his people on a regular basis, although he seemed to know nothing about the said subject – and there were quite a few of them. In another incident, a rising junior manager demanded for 5-star hotel lodgings during a work trip because he was “used to luxury hotels” in his personal capacity.

It is too easy to slip into the giddy euphoria of ‘bossination’ when one is on the rise to the top of the cupcake tier – that sugar rush can be exhilarating. But even Jesus Christ had to recruit apostles and maintain a following. He did it by focusing on getting his work done, and less about beating his ‘boss drum’. Although the prophet might have at times been demanding or unrelenting in his behaviour he was, to our understanding of scripture, capable of performing miracles.

That, fortunately for most, is not possible.

And most fortunately for those who do prioritise their path is clear even if muddy, noticeable even when crowded by the noise of naïveté or benign leadership.

Why Brian Tracy got it right

When a person focuses on “what’s in it for me?”, their motivations and world revolves around a small sphere that is themselves. This is a familiar and limiting world, because it does not involve the motivations and dreams of others.

But when his aim is “how can I help you?” his entire thought paradigm shifts to acknowledge and consider the motivations and dreams of others, thus broadening his views and subsequently opportunities in life. In the end he is enlightened, enriched and evolved.

Resistance is Futile…

or “Stick that Integration Brou-ha-ha up…”

Have you ever had a colleague that wasn’t happy – no matter what happened at work? I mean NO.MATTER.WHAT. You know, even when they got free food there would be something snarky said about it, or if the company invested in a new set of uniforms there’d be some nasty comments made about the colour?

It’s like they have RESIST AT ALL COSTS written on their foreheads?

Look, I can relate.

Unofficial statistics will tell you that in any firm, up to 50% of the herd will go along with the rigmarole. The other 50% is the “problem”: because the numbers here vary intensely based on how a company is run. Let’s pick a highly bureaucratic and personal centralised management style for sport. We know of the suggested disadvantages from peer studies (lack of innovation, strangulation of creativity and endoscopic management policies) but what do we know about its effect on staff morale? More importantly, how does it damage morale to the point of resentment? 

The internet’s most popular meme baby, who is the posterboy(girl) for a bad day.

The last part should be of particular concern for those in HR and leadership positions because these individuals (or daisies forbid, cluster of peoples) can greatly influence and demoralise the greatly misled other happy 50% of people. One would presume that in a regressed bureaucratic and personal centralised (BPC) management framework, these corporate revolutionists would be largely ignored or dealt with coldly.

Because, a small percent of loss resources doesn’t matter.

Or “we’re too busy making money to care about those who disagree with us”.

Which by and large is probably not very damaging if this marginal percentage of staff are not talented or PR savvy (think Greg Smith), because regressed BPC firms are probably so far up the stratosphere they have forgotten what it means to cut coupons to save 50p on dishwashing liquid or skipping lunch so your kid can have his day at a field trip. I’m not debating corporate greed (get your fix on other blogs) but am more interested in organisational engagement.

It’s about what say we intend to do – and then go in the complete opposite direction.

It’s about how we impart, through actions (and not necessarily words), how unimportant and insignificant our employees and subordinates are in the big picture.

It’s about the painful and irrelevant “penny wise, pound foolish” approach we have to operating our businesses, and making work a miserable experience for those who have to bear the load and innovate on ‘nothing’.

It’s about the self-serving satisfaction we derive from giving out a free meal, a pointless gift or a measly reward as ‘tokens of appreciation’ on fixed occasions in an attempt to make up for poor leadership the rest of the time.

It’s the nepotistic and blinkered evaluations and remunerative tactics used.

It’s the juvenile and obsolescent ‘scare’ tactics used to ‘discipline’ people, when this is not an army not a hostel and no one is a child.

It’s about the broken promises and irreparable loss of trust that has piled itself into a colossal waste fill that has gone to rot.

And it creates a deep, deep sense of discontent – even repugnance – for having to have anything to do with organisations like these. Whilst we may continue to insist that unhappy people can “just leave”, they sometimes don’t. Or they can move to “happier” places and encourage the other 50% to join them in their new utopia.

The point is either way, the organisation loses in the long run.

Competitive advantage is not necessarily gained from having the biggest, fastest, strongest, highest whatever. That may have worked in the good ole days of racing to the bottom, but that’s not where everyone wants to head to and not especially now. As markets become increasingly open and business operations (and knowledge transfer) transition, there is a global race to hack off the crema and hoard it to oneself. This is only achieved by firms that understand the sensitivities of developing, nurturing and managing a valuable work culture that supports varied theories such as transvergence and organic growth. Those who are still grappling with the concepts will, and are, finding it increasingly difficult to fill key positions and make up for the talent they once lost. Rationally, taking more than six months to fill a middle management integral role speaks volumes about a firm’s integrity in this highly connected environment. There is a great possibility that the market is already highly aware of its organisation’s culture, and honestly all that lip service about “we have trouble finding great talent” is just not believeable at the rate that Google and Microsoft get resumes thrown at them.

Great talent is out there – organisations just need to give them a compelling reason to join them.

Why Does Anyone Buy from You, Anyway?

“He gave a speech about “I have a dream”, not “I have a plan”

In the frenetic pace for validation, power and resources we lose touch with the humanistic values that make us tick. We try to reason responses through unnecessary nit-picking and become increasingly limited and short-sighted in our world views. Mass consumerism has made us insatiable creatures that hoard (you didn’t hear about shows like “Hoarders” twenty years ago) but also insatiable for the next sales. That the purpose of any organisation, as suggested by John Roberts in The Modern Firm, is ‘to coordinate and motivate people’s economic activity’, has been replaced now with ‘only to purport the income of owners’.

Employees and the market are not blind to such tactics. The greed and denial that reinforces the actions to support those goals have been exposed in the recent economic crisis. And yet there is a silver lining here; although cruel it is an awakening that those who truly wish to remain in the game must now play it differently. We may be greatly affected by market forces but our sustainability is fueled by our ability to remain relevant to the market. And this begins by being relevant to those who contribute to the very fibre of our organisations, small and large.

The days of autocratic and archaic management policies are being replaced by a new organisation culture that understands the delicate balance of people managing people. The way in which we serve our markets is more often than not a direct result of how we are treated at work: our internal culture becomes our external culture. I have seen this in the organisations I work in and through others. Enthusiasm is so tacit, incredibly crucial to our businesses yet so terribly misunderstood in certain organisations.

In essence, we create the world in which our customers buy into and if it is unattractive to us then it will be unattractive to our customers. Until we grasp that attraction, and hence enthusiasm, is transitional we will not – as inferred by Sinek – reach that tipping point.

The Illusion of Monetary Incentives in Driving Productivity and Performance

Dan Pink on Motivation and Rewards in Organisations

A friend who recently resigned was being counter offered by her company. Given her unpalatable working experience, I thought she was collecting more rope by demanding a higher salary lest renegotiating her terms with the organisation. Their management and HRM policies are archaic and the response would be predictable: a power play would ensue on how much they would pay her, and once a number was settled upon she would be headed straight to the abyss of corporate hell.

I’ve recently been in discussions with Liverpudlian colleagues on what drives knowledge workers, and I thought Dan Pink has put out an excellent argument: we are way past post-war, industrial age employment. We need to stop thinking – and managing – like factory managers especially when we are leading sophisticated, services-oriented businesses. And even if we are running factories, the majority of employees (between the ages of 25-40) are vastly more informed and emotionally self-actualised than the employee of 40 years past. Blame it on the internet but we’re alot more aware of what is out there, you and I.

There needs to be a review of and a balance struck in the acquisition, management, rewards and growth of the knowledge workers. This is evident in the growing discontention of employees worldwide, that people are increasingly demoralised and demotivated at work. They may not understand the science behind the real reasons and put it down to insufficient pay, but if you listen carefully to their feedback probably more than half of their dissatisfaction stems from poor management and disoriented approach to motivation and rewards.

This does not imply that we do away with monetary rewards, but it calls for an encompassed approach. Anyone can pay for talent; but you can’t retain or leverage on talents and abilities purely through the use of money. There are so many contributing factors to developing a competitive advantage through resources. Examples can be seen in striving for homogeneous work environments versus heterogeneous environments, where a team or organisation thrives on a resource that is highly-diverse and as a result creates dynamic capability. Yet, we still have bigoted HRM practices that limit potential for real innovation or protectionism that only serves to harbour ego-serving individuals with limited talent whilst marginalising the truly brilliant.

The boom and bust of certain organisations whilst others in the same industry continue to thrive is a valid example of the result of antediluvian business practices that hamper progress or are only limited to one function within its ranks. Yet there will always be employees that continue to subject themselves to these cultures, probably out of fear that meaningful work cannot be truly found. It is therefore imperative that knowledge workers are aware of new organisational practices and apply them where possible in an effort to accelerate the shift into a more positive, and applicable state of corporate governance.

Are you a seminar JUNKIE? Don’t be in a hurry to join the next one…

I was invited to a seminar last Saturday, in particular a sales and leadership seminar facilitated by what appears to be, a pretty popular sales and leadership guru (as it says on his website). It was a 2 day programme with no itinerary – just a registration time and end time.

I had already RSVP’d several weeks earlier, and notified that I would be late to arrive due to work commitments: 3pm to be exact. I arrived at 230pm to a mass of people waiting outside the ballroom doors and registered promptly. I was told the doors would be open at 250pm, and now was the lunch break. So I parked myself at the entrance, wondering what this was all about (no folder or information was given to me). The doors opened at 3pm, and we entered into a ballroom booming with dance music and people frolicking on stage. Clearly, I was not in the mood to do any of this after a long morning of work running on a week of sleep debt, To be precise my mind was saying “What the hell?” and “Not another one of those kumbaya sales seminars, PLEASE!”

The speaker does a run through on the earlier topics, to which he then opens the floor for questions. A Dutch gentlemen introduces himself, and is told bluntly – and repeatedly – he cannot be heard. We spend 2 minutes mucking around with the sound until the speaker can hear him and he raises his question:

“You said this morning we should call on something if we felt it was wrong. I want to call you on something, Mr Speaker. This morning you stressed on punctuality and its importance. You told us the session would commence at 250pm but the doors were only open at 3pm”

The speaker then asks the querent if that made him uncomfortable; the querent, clearly feeling intimidated and lacking in self-esteem, blubbered something or another and sat down. The speaker then went on about how life isn’t fair, and you don’t always get what you want, get over it etc.

It took a good 5 minutes; no apology except for something about he would ‘pay for the consequences’ and some weak excuse that the hall wasn’t ready for us so it took a little longer to organise hence they were late. He also said ‘it’s no big deal’ and ‘I’m late alot’.

He then asked the querent if he still had a problem to which the querent replied in negative, saying he wasn’t unhappy that we started off 10 minutes late but was just pointing it out.

Yea, right.

Over the next 5 hours, the speaker would exchange some useful information but not without committing the following sins:

• Punctuating almost every other sentence with “Does that make sense?”, “Understand?”, “Yes?”, “Hello?”, “Turn to the person next to you, high five and say…”
• Playing music too loudly during activities which hindered, and hampered delegates from communicating effectively
• Letting activties run for too long resulting in losing participation and interest, which stemmed from having too many people in the game all at once and only 50% of the audience truly participating while the rest were literally lost in translation
• And of all things uttering “Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca’s management style obsolete” or something to that effect, which made a few eyes roll (mind were doing something out of The Exorcist, because it really is blasphemy)

All this resulting in us breaking for dinner at 830pm but not without an assignment: to sell one of his books to a complete stranger. Of course, you had to buy the book first at an ‘incredible value’ then during dinner sell it to a complete stranger. I had decided that I wasn’t here to sell anything for anyone as I was mentally checked out of work; I was here to learn and play, not sell anything. To our dismay, delegates had to pay full hotel prices for food (that’s $65 for my club sandwich and wine) with no facilities or discounts offered. By the time we got back into the hall, it was 950pm and up to 10% of delegates were missing and probably 50% had mentally checked out.

Then it happened.

The point of no return.

I’ll try to summarise the course of events which occurred in the next 2 hours in the best possible way:

• The speaker asked – in typical elementary school style – who sold, tried to sell and didn’t attempt at all to sell – his books. He then admonishes, again in typical elementary style, the group for not trying (I saw it coming and just watched, this guy is that predictable), told them off for being there and said they shouldn’t sign up for his advanced programme because they wouldn’t ‘like it’. He told them they didn’t do the ‘assignment’ because they were making up excuses not to (which I agree and disagree).
• The speaker coached a lady on the spot about her ability to speak in ‘any language’ (she apparently had a phobia in speaking in English). It resulted in her doing jumping jacks and shouting into the microphone “I am a good speaker in any language” which was really, really annoying and not particularly interesting.
• He invites delegates to share experiences. A young chap makes the mistake of saying he didn’t sell the books because he felt he was too young to sell at 23, saw half the room leave without trying and decided to just ‘follow’. Clearly this displeased the speaker, who proceed to use the ‘F’ word in reference to the boy in regards to making excuses, and then said “Well you shouldn’t follow losers” (yes, he referred to his paying customers as ‘losers’) and then tried to blow the situation out of proportion by guilt-tripping the audience with “This is the example you are setting for the younger generation”.
• Following that, he was running through the audience on earlier exercises and when he didn’t get the response in the manner and enthusiasm he expected – he exploded. In a massive display of emotion, the speaker shouted at the audience: “Hey! Answer my question: did you, or did you not conduct the exercise? What was your score? When I ask you a question, you respond! You are not here to listen! I am not here to entertain you! If you are not interested, we can stop this right NOW! I don’t have to do this!”

I remember turning to the German lady next to me when he spat the ‘F’ word at the young Cambodian chap and said “Did he just swear at the guy?” and she responded with a smile “Well, I suppose that is being X (in reference to a country) for you”. Well, that’s sad – to be generalised as a crass lout by your country of origin. Even that itself is ironic as the speaker would tell the young man that he is “a delegate representing Cambodia and its people” and that “there are people in Cambodia hoping you will learn something, go back and help them”.

You could say my sense of respect, attention span and enthusiasm flew completely out the window by the time the speaker issued his raging diatribe – simply because he was again contradicting himself : that when emotions are high, intelligence is low.

The German lady asked me “Did you sell anything?” to which I replied with a smile “No. I didn’t come here to help someone sell their books, I am here to learn. That is my choice.”

Out of respect and because I have a family, I left the hall when it was dark (videos were being played) at 11.45 pm. I don’t know at exactly what time the session ended and I didn’t bother going in the next day to find out – I am sure there were many who decided they had better things to do on a Sunday that to be shouted at over trivial things. Thankfully, I didn’t pay for the programme but that doesn’t mean the bad taste in my mouth was any less than those who did. And being on the floor I got first hand feedback about the whole shebang.

And I sympathise greatly for them.

The speaker had a lot to share; at times, too much. The programme was engineered as such that he did alot of talking which drained him immeasurably. The constant punctuations were unnecessary, disruptive and at times insulting to the general audience. The delivery was at times just droning: go round this way, then that way, then reversing back before the point is made. The speaker contradicted himself so many times it’s not funny: on punctuality, respect for others, listening skills, being present. He may understand them, but he doesn’t deliver on them and exemplify them as a seminar leader. He came off as arrogant, biting off more than he can chew, disinterested and insensitive to cultural inclinations, emotional, disrespectful and having very poor time management skills. For someone who has ‘done business in this region for 11 years’, his lack of social sensitivities is highly indicative of an individual who has his head so far up his you-know-where he doesn’t grasp that learning is a lifelong experience.

It is a pity he felt compelled to verbally abuse the audience for not doing as he expected – especially the young Cambodian lad who is probably not mature enough to understand that life is a series of choices which comes with taking ownership. The speaker has a tendency of making people feel small, then trying to soften the blow with “But I can see that you are an intelligent person” which is pointless, especially when you have publicly humiliated unnecessarily. To the speaker, this is in line with his statement that “I am not here to be your friend”.

Like most people I have been to numerous seminars, but I have also had the opportunity to sit in conversation with experienced trainers and training companies to better understand the different perspectives of training and seminar management. Aside from watching Ps and Qs, the best rated speakers are often:

• Very good with time management because punctuality in all sense is important: begin, break and end on time. Your training is not so important that people should be made to stay for more than 30 minutes, and heaven forbid 2 hours more (as per this seminar) than they should.
• Clear, linear delivery with varied but relevant examples. This means understanding your audience and applying the right techniques – not just your techniques. Keep the draining, derogatory punctuations to a minimum or only with your dog (even).
• Neutrality, openness and humility is important. An excellent training session occurs when information is given and received – this is called communications and the best trainers get this. When asking for feedback, accept and chew on it. Ask for permission to correct, always. Ask questions regularly to know you are on the same page as your audience, but not so forced that they feel they are developing hemorrhoids just by being there. Apologise when you make a mistake or contradict yourself, there is no victory in looking like a complete <insert insult> especially when you are in the capacity of leadership. Address personal or selective issues separately and away from the show so attention is not focused on one problem that may be irrelevant to the rest.
• Lead by example. Nobody cares how many raving reviews you have on your website, we all know that’s stuff you filtered and probably made up. What’s important is the here and now: how you are treating me, your audience. Your credibility is being assessed with every step and breath uttered, with every word spoken, every twitch and inference. We get that no one is perfect but the less empathetic you are to your audience the less engagement and respect you will have. Belittling their choices is also a giant no-no.
• Circumstantial behaviour and interaction. Have you ever heard of speakers who are nice as pie in public seminars but become insane drill sergeants when hired as personal coaches? This is not a method to dupe you into buying personal coaching classes – it is just selective circumstantial behaviour and interaction. We are all called to behave and communicate within existing parameters at all times, dependent on where we are and with whom. Just because you have a raging, hard-as-nuts coach that made you cry does not qualify you to behave in the same manner to a room of 280 international delegates – that’s immature. You could possibly do that with a small group or with individuals where the emotional and mental pulse of each individual is understood, but even that is optional. I understand that aggression may work with certain audiences who are so keen (or desperate) to get information but I don’t know many emotionally stable people who will respond positively to rage in training.

All said and done, the speaker is an intelligent and enthusiastic individual (see now I am applying his methods already – it must have been successful on some level right?). I did get some useful information and tips, even though the organisers failed to provide me with a seminar folder (kudos on a job badly done for running out of materials despite my RSVP several weeks ahead). I may purchase some of his books because they appear useful, although this is greatly in opposition of my stand on not supporting what is to me, bad speakers. And this guy rates pretty damn bad in my list (although he’s so arrogant he might think that it is cool being labeled ‘bad’).

It is unfortunate for him as well, that WOM is a powerful tool – especially with the availability of digital and social media. I can be sure that myself along with a good handful of delegates will not be supporting the speaker the next time he steps into this country, lest this region. There won’t be many good words to say, and even less sales of books to be had as a result of the rippling effect from this experience.

For a salesman like him, that is really not a good sign.

Latest update: I couldn’t help but scan Amazon.com for reviews of one of his books – I was not surprised by some of the reviews which included:

“This was a cute book with really great pictures. If you looking for real sales information don’t spend the money on this book.”

“Disappointed again. Surely he sells books – lots of them. But he probably ran out of stories. Not worth the money.”

“Well written with some interesting theories and ideas. But there is nothing here that will help you do your job better, serve your clients and customers better or most importantly go to the bank more often. Some of the ideas and analysis about personality types may be useful to sales managers, but that’s about it. If you’re looking for good nuts and bolts stuff that you can put to use tomorrow look into Schiffman or Sandler.”

and one that hits particularly hard…

“I probably read 100 or more books each year, including a significant number of business and sales books. I enjoyed some of Robert Kiyosaki’s other advisor books, but this one really [is bad].

It is full of vague analogies to whatever kind of “dog” you are -the point that you do not have to be aggressive to be in sales is also foolish and false. You can certainly bring your own personality to sales or any other profession, and you SHOULD, but all this psychobabble about “being your own dog” or whatever is just that – silly psychobabbly designed to seperate you from your money and put it in an author’s pocket who really has nothing useful to say.

If you really want to learn something about selling that you can actually USE, read Zig Ziglar’s “Sales 101” or Donald Moine’s “Ultimate Selling Power”.”

Yea sorry dude, guess I’ll save up for another Jack Welch winner.