Ever had a frustration as a leader in trying to bring a group to consensus on something? Ever tried to bring a group to complete agreement on a decision, plan, or agenda?
It's quite common for most of us to have stories to share here. Truth is, it's difficult to bring a group to any agreement most of the time.
So, what's the solution? Well, most of the solutions are in the leader's capacity to guide a group through to a solution. There are various methodologies to bring a group to a solution. I will not be addressing those methodologies here.
What I would like to discuss is the principle behind this... the principle that it's always more about commitment than consensus.
How often are we more concerned about consensus as we lead a group through something? How much more effective would we be if commitment were our driving principle in guiding to a solution?
Our goal as leaders and our goal team members is to reach toward the objective set before us. That objective will inevitably have personal perspectives and nuances that influence us all to a different level. We, as leaders, have the responsibility to set those presuppositions and emotions aside and work toward a solution that best for the goal, team, and those influenced.
Once our objective is in place then our ability to reach that goal are more easily attainable.
So, what's so different about commitment over consensus? Consensus will leave you paralyzed, inconsistent, and ineffective. Commitment is tangible and moves you toward goals quicker.
This is simple to use. Start by setting the right expectations with your group(s) then move forward by setting in your mind what commitment looks like. Form in your mind what commitment looks like and guide the group to that goal, and not consensus.
Challenge: Try using this principle in solution finding and see how much more effective you before in leading people.
Respond: Have you ever had an experience that was stifled by consensus? Have you ever seen commitment work as a strategy? Tell us about it...
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Third Victory
Many of you may be aware of Proctor and Gambles two points of success... (1) when the consumer purchases their product, and (2) when the consumer decides to purchase it again.
It's a brilliant and simple system for determining and defining success. And as I've stated many times before... it's almost more important to define success than it is to have success.
Consider the first success point... when the consumer purchases the product. We all know the experience of standing at Wal-Mart and trying to decide which item to purchase. Many of us are looking for value, function, longevity, etc. But once it's all said and done there is always one product that reigns victorious. That one product safely finds itself in your shopping card heading for a new home with you.
Now consider the second success point... when the consumer decides to purchase the product again. We all take that product home, analyze it's effectiveness and the value it provides for us, we will call that the items utility. That utility has a value to us personally and if that utility is high enough then we'll make a point to purchase that product again.
In any area of work we all have those two points of success, be it product sales, consulting, program development, etc. I believe the Proctor and Gamble model is ideal and great to challenge us all.
But I would like to challenge this model by adding a third success point.
I believe that the third victory is when a consumer becomes an advocate for a product and they beginning selling the product for you.
Picture this... you've successfully caught someone's attention, you've successfully make them a loyal consumer... not what if they become an advocate for your product.
The challenge here is that many of our resources might be better spent toward the third success point than the first. Yes, there's benefit to draw in new people; but what if we effort ourselves more to make advocates of our product (because our product is quality) and allow those loyal consumers feed the first success point.
All in all, it's quality and stewardship again. The quality of the product and the stewardship of treating people well and providing the best possible solution. In the end, that's what makes our consumer and clients most satisfied with our work.
Challenge: Think through what it would take to make someone an advocate and not just a consumer of your product.
Respond: How have you guided someone to become an advocate? How do we make advocates of our product?
It's a brilliant and simple system for determining and defining success. And as I've stated many times before... it's almost more important to define success than it is to have success.
Consider the first success point... when the consumer purchases the product. We all know the experience of standing at Wal-Mart and trying to decide which item to purchase. Many of us are looking for value, function, longevity, etc. But once it's all said and done there is always one product that reigns victorious. That one product safely finds itself in your shopping card heading for a new home with you.
Now consider the second success point... when the consumer decides to purchase the product again. We all take that product home, analyze it's effectiveness and the value it provides for us, we will call that the items utility. That utility has a value to us personally and if that utility is high enough then we'll make a point to purchase that product again.
In any area of work we all have those two points of success, be it product sales, consulting, program development, etc. I believe the Proctor and Gamble model is ideal and great to challenge us all.
But I would like to challenge this model by adding a third success point.
I believe that the third victory is when a consumer becomes an advocate for a product and they beginning selling the product for you.
Picture this... you've successfully caught someone's attention, you've successfully make them a loyal consumer... not what if they become an advocate for your product.
The challenge here is that many of our resources might be better spent toward the third success point than the first. Yes, there's benefit to draw in new people; but what if we effort ourselves more to make advocates of our product (because our product is quality) and allow those loyal consumers feed the first success point.
All in all, it's quality and stewardship again. The quality of the product and the stewardship of treating people well and providing the best possible solution. In the end, that's what makes our consumer and clients most satisfied with our work.
Challenge: Think through what it would take to make someone an advocate and not just a consumer of your product.
Respond: How have you guided someone to become an advocate? How do we make advocates of our product?
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Debating Character
I hesitated writing on this subject but it's been weighing on me for sometime now.
I have found the presidential debates quite interesting in recent weeks. Sure, I have my political biases, but leaving that aside for the moment I would like to take notice at what's addressed and what isn't.
I find it ironic that each of these candidates espouses a plan for change and what they intend to do once elected. It doesn't take a brilliant person to determine that each of these men did not actually sit down and write their own plan... but rather a team of people wrote these plans for them. Of course, the plans do reflect policy positions of each respective person, but let's be honest. The greatest driver in content for these plans is political and for the purpose of persuasion.
Now, are these plans well written and potentially worthwhile for this nation? Sure, they very well may be. But let's address the next issue. How many presidents actually get to implement their plan? Is that the role of the US President by terms of our Constitution? It's not.
So then, why are we debating a plan that has little relevancy to who these men truly are?
We've completely missed what's most important. Character. Character is what draws us to people to follow them in the long run. Character is what determines how we will act in response to things that aren't "planned". Character is what sets us apart from others and positions us to lead others well. And character is the foundation for any person to truly follow another.
But we don't discuss character. How come? It seems as though the American people don't care that much about it? Or do they? What if we could have a debate on character? What if we could see who these men are for their character and understand how they will respond to situations?
I'll leave with this thought. Think on times in your life where you've been most willing to follow someone. The times when you've found it easy to follow someone. What stood out? Was it their charisma or their character? Which of those traits most concerns you for someone you would trust and consider a friend?
Why don't we try debating character next time?
I have found the presidential debates quite interesting in recent weeks. Sure, I have my political biases, but leaving that aside for the moment I would like to take notice at what's addressed and what isn't.
I find it ironic that each of these candidates espouses a plan for change and what they intend to do once elected. It doesn't take a brilliant person to determine that each of these men did not actually sit down and write their own plan... but rather a team of people wrote these plans for them. Of course, the plans do reflect policy positions of each respective person, but let's be honest. The greatest driver in content for these plans is political and for the purpose of persuasion.
Now, are these plans well written and potentially worthwhile for this nation? Sure, they very well may be. But let's address the next issue. How many presidents actually get to implement their plan? Is that the role of the US President by terms of our Constitution? It's not.
So then, why are we debating a plan that has little relevancy to who these men truly are?
We've completely missed what's most important. Character. Character is what draws us to people to follow them in the long run. Character is what determines how we will act in response to things that aren't "planned". Character is what sets us apart from others and positions us to lead others well. And character is the foundation for any person to truly follow another.
But we don't discuss character. How come? It seems as though the American people don't care that much about it? Or do they? What if we could have a debate on character? What if we could see who these men are for their character and understand how they will respond to situations?
I'll leave with this thought. Think on times in your life where you've been most willing to follow someone. The times when you've found it easy to follow someone. What stood out? Was it their charisma or their character? Which of those traits most concerns you for someone you would trust and consider a friend?
Why don't we try debating character next time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
