Good leadership ideas have taken a step backwards with the last showing of The Apprentice (Nov. 18), more than usual.  A contestant was fired for being the project manager for a failed 30 second commercial project.  She was told (in the boardroom) how this was the second time that she failed as project manager.  In addition she was told how she was VERY dominant and did not delegate well.  Yet, after she received her - "Your Fired" - the epiloge that follows the program had her saying that she was approached by a Trump representative and hired to represent the Trump Brand.

Her caustic nature, most often, had detrimental impacts on the groups of which she was a member.  Her contributions were somewhat high school in nature (as were indicated by some of the people outside Trump Enterprises with whom she worked).  She was the typical "my way of the highway" leader (and team member) who MOST often finds employees quiting their positions, unless they think exactly like the pushy boss or are condtantly drown out by the pushy team member. 

I beleive in giving one a second chance, but her personality indicates she would find difficulty in listening to dissenting opinions, as she often demonstrated throughout the projects and the programs. Such an attitude often produces a better chance for group think, as the dissenting opinions dry up because they are not heard or quit because they are not heard.

People can be trained to be better leaders, but this person would be a great challenge to a trainer.  However, as the videos provide evidence of her personality, she might not change from "my way or the highway" mentality.  However, maybe that is Trumps Brand! 

Do what you say or say what you really mean!

I am surprised as of late to read the news about the upcoming elections and think about how the stories shed light on aspects of business.  A recent article in Newsweek (Oct. 4, 2010) has a lead story entitled “The Bear Truth: Will the ‘Mama Grizzlies Really Protect American Kids?”.  The article inside then explains how the “Mama Grizzlies” say they want to help kids but have actions which reveal that they truly are not interested in helping kids, unless the kid is their own.

This has made me think of all the times that bosses and managers in business will say that they are family oriented but will not let an employee attend an arts or a sporting activity if the activity takes place during the work day.

The Undercover Boss has also revealed some interesting aspects.  At the end of the show when the boss reveals him/herself to the employees whom he/she has met and with whom he/she has worked, the people are rewarded because of the life stories they tell to the boss undercover (flight lessons, college tuition paid, fully-paid vacations, etc.).  Nothing is ever said about the rest of the employees of the company.  What happens to them?  Is the company going to provide all single mothers with time off to assist with their children or will every employee who dreams of being a pilot going to have their training for a pilot’s license paid for?  This question has been a puzzle to me.

Thus, I think that executives need to dig deeper into their companies.  Could they go undercover in other areas without a camera on them and find out more about the people who work for them.  Maybe this goes back to managing by walking around – only the execs are undercover.  The results could be a different feeling about the company, a better understanding of the plight of their employees, and ways in which the company can really retain talent, manage and engage their employees by doing what they say or saying what they REALLY mean.

"Congress shall make no laws" - interesting.  CONGRESS shall make no law.  Nothing in the First Amendment implies that individuas, businesses, or other nongovernmental organizations cannot regulate speech.

The Miss California contestant, the radio commentator Dr. Laura, and Palin, all have refered to their rights of free speech being denighed by nongovernmental entities.  I did not hear those same remarks being thrown out when the Dixie Chicks were being dropped from many radio stations' play lists.

This confusion by such nationally known people can befuddle many people as to their rights.  This confusion can lead one to become easy prey for politicians and how they interpret governmental actions. 

People should be well read and understand the real Constitutional and legal rights that they possess.  Ignorence is not bliss.  Ignorence only allows people to be taken advantage of.  Ignorance allows others to make claims that are not real and make minor events more important than the event should be (look at the crazy concern about Obama being a secret Muslim).

People should be educated and read a great deal of material - not just from one or two biased media outlets.  Our nation's health is at stake. 

"Americans have long had a preference for political compromise, and this feeling has only increased over the past 20 years. The latest Pew Research Center for the People & the Press values study found 79% saying they like political leaders who are willing to make compromises in order to get the job done, up from an already high 72% in 1987. The proportion saying they completely agree with this statement stands at 29%, up from 16% 20 years ago.

Throughout this timespan, Democrats have consistently expressed more support for leaders who compromise than have Republicans, and this holds true today. Fully 87% of Democrats like leaders who are willing to make compromises in order to get the job done, compared with 70% of Republicans." This is from

January 22, 2007

Broad Support for Political Compromise in Washington

But Many Are Hesitant to Yield on Contentious Issues.

This is the latest information I could find.  Cris read an article a few days ago that had similar statistics, and that article and the book "A History of the American People" by Paul Johnson in which he writes about the Constitutional Convention:

"Hense the Convention set to with a will.  Ann analusis of the voting shows that the mechanics of compromise operated throughtout - in 560 roll-calls, no state was always on the losing side, and each at times was part of the winning coalition."

He went on to explain that compromises were made over such issues as the division of responsibilities of the different government entities, slavery, election of the president.  Johnson writes that other attempts at democracy by other countries - France, Latin American countries - even the European Union have not followed what was done in the 1780s in establishing the Constitution of America.

I just wonder if the legislature that is in session now would be able to establish a Constitution that has lasted around 220 years.  I am not sure that these representatives could.  Both Republican and Democrat state legislatures draw boundry lines for elections; both establish districts that are safe for representatives and Senators have about a 90% return rate for another six years.  Thus, the art of compromise has somewhat been forgotten - if the electorate in a district is so conservative with their beliefs - chances that the representative and maybe even one senator may never compromise either.

My hope is that competition is installed in the election process.  Districts should be drawn up with competition in mind.  No person running for Congress or the Senate should be safe.  Republicans (mostly) say that competition is important in finances and business, etc.  However, that does not seem to be followed through in politics (to be fair - on either side). 

Thus, I hope that people will begin to think that compromise is something that needs to be reintroduced to the political realm.  Maybe we can learn more about the compromises made in 1780 and copy that atmosphere in our governmental entities.

The other day I was watching the show where CEOs go undercover.  This week the CEO from 1-800-Flowers went undercover.  One of the statements which stuck with me from this show was the idea that an entirely different set of skills were needed in most of the positions.  The CEO seemed surprised by this.  I contend that very often one needs an entirely different set of personality traits in many cases as well.

The CEO's experience with the candy machine where he needed to be calmer in the face of a fast moving conveyor belt certainly indicates this.  He complimented the woman on her calm approach to the job.  Just think what that scene would have looked like with someone who had a very nervous and worried personality trait?

Therefore, I hope that employers begin to look at more than a person's qualifications for a position.  Employers should also look at a person's personality TRAITS (not types) to match with the conditions needed for that position.

Because a person has a certain personality trait does not mean that he/she cannot do the job; however, he/she should be aware that the personality traits that he/she has will have an impact on the way the job is approached and how the job is viewed and how the job is enjoyed.  I hope more CEOs begin to find this out, even without going undercover.

I was watching The Biggest Loser on TV last night.  The show was a rerun but I had not seen it.  The show centered on “the game.”  One of the contestants was only looking out for herself.  Each comment she had, when she talked with the camera person, centered upon her need to gain immunity.  She did not understand why the remainder of the group members did not vote off those that had a better chance of losing a higher percentage of weight.  In her terms the contestants could “pick off” those that were way overweight because they would be more of a threat to gaining a position in the final four (her reasoning was that people who were becoming thinner would find it more difficult to lose the higher portions of weight due to the change from fat to muscle).

She knew she had no friends in the group.  An underwater contest made that point very clear during the show.  This contest, when a person finished his/her collection of weights, could help another person collect weights.  Well, no one helped her collect the weights and she ended up last in that contest.

When the time came for weigh-ins, the woman went below the yellow line along with another contestant.  Both women were given a few minutes to speak with the group before the voting took place to send the person off the campus.

The vote was unanimous to have her leave the campus.  Three of the contestants stated their reasoning as “she played the game, but no one else wanted to play.”  The remaining people formed a connection of losing weight as a group, not as an individual.  The encouragement of each person to another made a bond that the other woman never understood.  She was out for herself and did not form those bonds; therefore, when the time came to vote someone off, she was the easy choice.

I, thus, contend once more that connections are what make a team. This does NOT mean that the people all need to think alike.  That would be called “group think” and can be dangerous.  However, a group formed with some commonality will allow more of an acceptance of different thoughts or ideas.  As I read in one book: I know that John does not like to fish, but we both like the Lakers.”  Build upon the connections and do not stress the differences until good connections are made.  

I find funny how many people do not use the information provided them by a certified personality assessment interpreter.  Many interpreters, however, do not use the instrument in the correct manner as well.  Thus, confusion about the personality assessment's purpose can certainly take place.

Well, three purposes should be explained to someone at any point in time when a personality assessment is taken.

1. The assessment lets one know his/her personality.  This allows a person to know why certain aspects of a career may be enjoyed or hated.  Knowing a personality can also allow for a person to understand how he/she approaches many tasks and other people.  However, an assessment is not for a person to know his/her personality and live by the cannon that "people need to deal with me because that is the way I am!"  Which opens the second point.

2. Since one knows his/her own personality, coming to a compromise, or stretching him/herself, when the natural personality is NOT the best for a given situation and dealing with others must be understood.  Those that maintain that MY personality needs to be addressed and others have to change to accommodate ME is poor use of the instrument and the knowledge it can provide.  This somewhat leads to the third point.

3. Someone should not be judged by his/her personality for a certain position or task.  A personality test has nothing to do with abilities.  The indication may be that the person will not enjoy some aspect of the position; however, personality assessments should NEVER be interpreted to prevent someone from attempting or being assigned a given task or business opportunity.  A person might have the trait of worry.  So even if the position is one in which a high strung person might find the tasks worrisome and stressful, the tasks itself could be completed by the person if they have the ABILITY.  The person may have a heartattack after the task is complete, but that high worry should not limit the person for consideration for any task.  This is often the biggest misinterpretation of the assessment.  Many people use the assessment incorrectly and try to assign people whose personality meets some criteria.

Well, to all the certified assessment people, help the person understand all three aspects of a personality assessment.  Do not fall into the trap of teaching someone the improper use of the instrument.

I was watching a commercial on television by American Express.  The commercial's idea was to have everyone take a step forward in helping with the environment or with others.  Seems as though we are in a time in which people are at odds with one another.  People seem to be so opinionated and very adamant, so much so that they cannot listen to what the opposing side is saying,  This has to stop at some point in time.

I was listening to a former Republican Senator on NPR speak about what the Senate was like many years back.  The politicians often went out for dinner or drinks after a day's work.  They formed connections and knew that the person on the other side had a different idea on approaching a problem, but they could discuss differences and still remain close friends.  Ted Kennedy and Oren Hatch come to mind.

The former Senator said that this way has been changed, in part due to the massive amount of money one has to raise to stay in office.  A politician now stays in DC from Monday to Thursday and then cuts out to his/her district in order to raise money.  No time is spent making friends with his/her fellow politicians.  These people do not make connections; thus, they never can see the opposing view as a different approach to the problem but look at the opposing people as something less than a real person.

This is what social scientists who study prejudice say.  Once a person becomes prejudiced about a certain political party, race, religion, or idea, he/she sees the people of the party as less than human.  This is why the attacks can be so vicious.  Evidence of this language is still being promoted throughout the Health Care debate.

Somehow we, as a voting public, must change this attitude.  WE have to take steps to encourage better discussions and not hinder them.  WE need to change the way we support politicians.  WE have to encourage people of opposing parties to find connections before they see the differences as being important enough to make them prejudiced against the people who have a different idea.

WE have not had blatant, physical, attacks with canes on the Senate floor, which has taken place; however, we have lost some essence of manners in addressing the opposing party.

So let us take that step forward and look for what is true about legislation, not lies or misinformation.  Let us not allow ourselves to be manipulated by attack adds.  Let us begin to find connections with one another in order to promote a common ground and see the other party as people and not something less than human.