The question I’m sometimes asked is why a 1-year cycle when many business plans are based on a 5 year cycle. It’s a valid question. Let me explain.

The strategic plan is a basic document that defines why the organization exists, what it does, and how it does it. To do that, it must stick with the basics.  It’s important to understand what the strategic plan is not. It is not a business plan, though it is an essential part of a business plan. It is not a marketing plan, though the marketing plan should be based on the strategic plan.

The organization will change over the course of a year and the plan must be able to change with it. While most parts of the plan will not change much, some will. A strategic plan that is not current will not be effective.

All this is not to say that the organization should have only 1 year goals. Quite the opposite. When reviewing the plan, the leadership team can remove those goals which have been completed and review those that are still in progress. It’s possible that a change over the last year has made a goal less important, or maybe it has become impossible to accomplish. It’s better to identify this than let the goal just sit there and fester. But, if a goal is still valid, but incomplete, there is no reason to change it.

Strategic planning should be a fairly short process. I usually accomplish the initial plan in 3 or 4 days because I’ve found when the process drags on longer than that, it can easily be overcome by events and never completed. When the initial plan is revisited a year later, the process is even shorter, as many of the details will not change that much. Therefore, this annual plan review can be accomplished without the great expenditure of time and effort that would be required if the plan was reviewed and revised on a 5-year basis.

If your strategic plan is more than 1 year old it’s time for a review.

If only there was an easy answer to that! There isn’t, but there are some definite characteristics you should be seeking. Of course, you want someone with technical expertise, but beyond that there are some critical traits that help signal potential leadership success.

1. Look for someone who has unquestionable integrity. A leader you can’t trust will be dangerous and you’ll spend a significant amount of your time watching what they do. No matter what other qualities the candidate may possess, if he or she doesn’t have integrity, they will be trouble.

2. How does your candidate relate with his or her co-workers? You’re not looking for the most popular person in the room, in fact that can be a negative sign because a person who is always popular may not have the organization’s best interest at heart. The ideal leadership candidate is one who is respected by the majority of co-workers. But, more importantly, he or she treats all co-workers with respect. This is a difficult test but a leader who doesn’t treat others well will not be as effective as one who does.

3. Does your candidate display an eagerness to learn new things? This doesn’t mean a person who is willing to learn something when tasked with something new but rather is constantly seeking out new information and stretching to gain more knowledge. This is a critical trait for a good leader.

4. Do your candidate’s co-workers naturally follow him or her? This can be a two-edged sword. Someone to whom people naturally gravitate can become a great leader, but they sometimes require a little more training and supervision specifically because of this natural ability. Sometimes called “born-leaders” they are usually charismatic and can often get their way without much regard to how others, especially those higher in the supervisory chain, feel about what they’re doing. If your candidate seems to have this ability, that’s fine, just make sure they stay in bounds.

5. How does your candidate relate to authority? Ideally, you’re looking for someone who respects authority and yet isn’t afraid to present thoughtful suggestions and opposing views. The ability to observe this skill is very much dependent on the leadership culture within your organization. It’s important though for leaders to be able to interact with authority figures without undue fear.

Remember that leadership is a learning process for new managers and they are not likely to be experts right away. There will be hiccups along the way, but if you’ve selected for these traits, you probably won’t be disappointed.

The leader’s trainer must accept that, just like training for a new employee, training a new leader will require some time and effort. In many ways, leadership can be more complex than the skills being led. When your new leader starts, what you do as a trainer will determine what sort of leader they become. Here are some actions to help your new leader excel.

1. Start by delegating small tasks. I don’t recommend the sink-or-swim technique at this point. It’s usually not smart to start with a major project upon which hinges the future of the company. Yes, this means you may have to cover for some things while your new leader learns the ropes; it’s just like training any new employee. Give good directions, make your expectations clear, and ensure they understand the desired outcome and any do’s and don’ts along the way. You may need to step in and make course corrections, but not too quickly. They won’t learn to think for themselves if they know you’re going to be right there to answer all the questions.

2. Your trainee needs to see the tough side of leadership early on. That doesn’t mean you leave them stranded in the desert, but don’t coddle them either. Failure is a natural part of life; no one wins all the time. Learning how to handle failure is an important lesson for leaders. The sooner they start to develop a thick skin, the better. When they mess something up or make the wrong decision you need to tell them about it. Hold them accountable. Too many leaders develop an attitude that they can blame others for their mistakes. That doesn’t mean you chop off their head at the first mistake. Instead, make the effects of their decision clear, then help them determine a better course of action.

3. Encourage new leaders to take risks. This is very hard to do because their risk is your risk as well, and their failure is your responsibility. A good leader has to be able to assess risk and decide what is worth taking and what isn’t. A good way to approach this is to sit down and discuss the idea you feel might be risky. Have the trainee explain all the pros and cons and explain why they think one outweighs the other. You’ll probably need to fill in some blanks learned from your own experience.

4. Celebrate their success. That doesn’t mean constant cheering for every little thing. But, when they have done something well, tell them. It’s very easy to only criticize, but positive reinforcement is a much better motivator and teacher.

Training leaders is not an easy job. Just like any other skill in your organization, talent and expertise is built over time. Training first time leaders will have benefits far beyond their initial success.

Frankly, I’m not a big fan of “diversity training” – especially for leaders. That’s not to say if you have several people from Elbonia, (with a nod to Dilbert) you shouldn’t do a little study or consult an expert to learn about Elbonian culture. But, if you need training to teach you how to treat people who are not like you, then you probably shouldn’t be in the leadership position in the first place.

With that in mind, here’s what a leader needs to know about diversity.

1. Everyone is different with a unique background, beliefs, etc. Treating anyone in a particular manor because of their skin color, accent, dress, or any other external indicator is a mistake. Get to know the person beneath those outward signs and treat them with respect.

2. Treating any particular “group” with more deference than any other is stupid. In fact, refer to number 1. Never treat anyone as a member of any group other than the one you lead within the organization.

3. Remember that we live in (insert your country’s name here). We have our own traditions, culture, and beliefs formed over many, many years. While we welcome people from other places, knowing your inclusion into our society will make us better, we (insert nationality here) are not going to be what you came from.

4. If someone is from a different background than you are, and most everyone is, learn from them. You spend a lot of time with your co-workers and so it makes sense to learn a little about them. If they were raised in Japan, or Turkey, or South Carolina, or Mexico, or Indiana, or Germany, or anywhere else, they will have a different outlook. Learn from them. Get to know them.

5. We spend a lot of time trying to teach people not to offend anyone: a noble, yet impossible goal. A better approach is to treat everyone with the same respect and dignity you expect. The golden rule is still the best guide. On the other side of the coin, don’t be easily offended. Chances are that affront you just suffered was completely unintentional. Both parties in communication have a responsibility. The sender is responsible for expressing a message in a way that is clear and not intentionally offensive. The receiver has a responsibility to listen carefully and evaluate the message. To do that effectively, the receiver must be as attuned to the sender as he or she expects the sender to be to them.

We are all, regardless of race, nationality, creed, or anything else, human. We suffer the shortcomingings that comes with being human. As leaders, we are responsible to do our best to overcome those weaknesses and set the example for great interpersonal relationships.

There’s an interesting phenomenon in the military. Often called the revolving door, it is common for military retirees to quickly return as civilian consultants. It makes a lot of sense for both the retiree and the military to continue to use expertise gained over many years. Here’s the really interesting part though. In many cases, the retiree, who may have become very frustrated with senior leadership’s apparent inability to accept their attempts at making improvements, find that those same leaders now seek out their advice and counsel.

While this example tends to be unique to the military (but not entirely) it is an illustration of something that is not uncommon in any leadership situation. Specifically, leaders tend to be less willing to accept advice and counsel from subordinates, while often seeking out the same assistance from outsiders. This is a great thing for those of us in the consulting business, but can be a bit frustrating for the subordinates in the organization. So why does this happen?

There are several reasons leaders don’t listen to their subordinates. The first is, quite frankly, their own insecurity. The thought that “if I take my subordinates advice on this I’ll appear weak and become vulnerable” becomes a governing fear, even though the opposite is usually more likely. People tend to respect a leader who will listen to, and seriously consider all opinions before making a decision.

Next is just plain ego. The higher a leader goes in the organization, the more they should guard against becoming ego driven. Ego tends to drive a “not invented here” mentality. The leader thinks, “If I didn’t think of it, then it must not be the best idea; after all, I know more than anyone else.” By the way, this problem isn’t restricted to individuals. Groups and even large organizations can fall prey to this as well; to their own detriment.

Third, there is an odd, almost symbiotic relationship between leaders and consultants. The leader usually has chosen the consultant, is paying him or her directly, and so has an expectation that the consultant is going to provide good advice and counsel. What’s really odd about this is that the leader is probably paying his or her own people even more in the long run. There’s a perception though that the consultant is costing money and therefore should be provide a return on investment.

All this is not to say that a leader should not utilize the expertise, experience, and especially the outside view a consultant can provide. That would be foolhardy. But just as silly is using a consultant at the expense of the leader’s own people and the experience and expertise that already exists within the organization.

Here are ten questions a leader should ask.

1. What is the mission of this organization?

2. What is your part in making that mission happen?

3. Under what set of values does this organization operate?

4. Do you know your boss’ vision?

5. What gets in the way of doing your job?

6. What would help you do your job better?

7. Tell me about your best day here.

8. Tell me about your worst day here.

9. Do you feel you have a future with this organization?

10. Are you happy here?

The first four questions give the leader an idea whether the basic tenets of the organization are understood at the working level. Workers who understand these basic principles will normally produce better results.

The next four questions give the leader an idea how the worker sees his or her job. The value in the answers to these questions is often found in the aggregate. That’s because there will always be the individual worker for whom nothing goes right or who you happen to catch on a bad day. Likewise, there are sometimes workers who would never dream of complaining and so won’t tell you anything that might be even remotely construed as negative. But, when taken together, the answers to these four questions paint a picture of things that might be getting in the way of progress and other things that are working well that might be worth expanding.

The final two questions might seem a little touchy feely for some but they are important as a gauge of morale. Of course, just because that guy in receiving isn’t happy doesn’t mean you’re going to change everything, but if a number of people aren’t happy you need to find out why. Whether or not workers feel they have a future with your organization is an indicator that’s more important today than it was thirty years ago. People today are much more likely to leave a company because they don’t see a future than years ago when such fluidity was not as common. Again, if a number of employees don’t see a future with the company, you have a metric that bears a little further investigation.

You may be hesitant to ask these questions, assuming you won’t get valid answers from people who are fearful of saying anything to the boss. That’s a legitimate concern, so don’t ask these questions yourself. Have someone from outside ask them; someone with whom the employees can feel free discussing the issues. Introduce that person and ensure the employees that you will only be given an overall assessment that will not include names or details. Instruct the person asking the questions to engage people in open discussion to get more than just yes and no answers.

The answers to these 10 questions will be a gold mine of information that can help your organization excel.

1. Don’t jump to conclusions until you have the facts. Yes, leaders sometimes have to make decisions when sufficient information is not available or there isn’t time to thoroughly consider all the angles. But, good leaders don’t use that excuse when it isn’t true. The Arizona bill is all of 13 pages long, including two pages of signatures. Yet many arguing against the bill, including senior government officials, admitted they were unable to find the time to read it. Leaders must absorb as much information as possible before making a decision. To blatantly disregard readily available information severely damages the leader’s credibility with bosses and subordinates.

2. Leaders must take bold action, and be willing to endure the results. Arizona was suffering from an influx of criminal activity. They analyzed the situation and determined the problem could be traced directly to failure to stop criminals from illegally crossing their southern border. With that information, they devised the bill as an action necessary to address the problem as they saw it. As a result, Arizona has suffered extreme bad press and some business loss, yet the state’s leaders, particularly the governor, have not wavered from their position. That’s not to say that a leader should never admit they were wrong and reevaluate a decision. All leaders will make mistakes and must be willing to admit and correct them, but leaders must not change their mind just because a decision is unpopular. As Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying (I don’t know if he really did) “you can’t please all the people all the time.”

3. Consistency is critical to leadership success. This is a little difficult to extract from the Arizona law but bear with me. The Arizona law merely directs state and local law enforcement to uphold federal law. Many who oppose that law do so on the grounds that it isn’t right to prevent people from coming into the country, whether they enter legally or illegally. At the same time, there are many local governments and even some states which mandate disobedience to federal law through what are generally referred to as “sanctuary” areas. Here’s the leadership lesson: a leader must be consistent! One cannot select which rules are to be followed and which are to be ignored. If leaders are allowed to selectively follow the rules, then their workers will do the same thing, but they will most likely elect to ignore something the leader thinks is important. A subset of this lesson is that leaders must be willing to listen when people tell them that a rule is not working, or needs updating.

While at first this analysis may seem like a bit of a stretch, think about your own work situation. Can you see any of these leadership lessons in yourself, or your leaders? Take these lessons to heart. As a leader you probably don’t have political spin doctors available to smooth over the inconsistencies.

1. They understood the mission. It’s essential for a leader to know why they are there. The delegates all came to Philadelphia to strongly and unequivocally address grievances against the mother country. The English parliament had been violating their own laws, the colonies were suffering as a result and they wanted that to stop. Though not everyone who came to Philadelphia arrived in favor of succeeding from Great Britain, they all understood that the actions of the mother country were no longer tolerable and some action must be taken.

2. They were well read and had great knowledge of the issues at hand. Great leaders are always striving to learn and their minds are open to new thoughts and ideas which they endeavor to apply to their responsibilities. Historians tell us that America’s founders, though many did not have the benefit of a formal education, were some of the most knowledgeable and well read persons of their, or any other, time. In that room in Philadelphia gathered a group unique in history for pure intellectual might.

3. They knew what they believed. They each had an underlying set of values and lived by them. There was agreement among the members of the delegation of what those basic values were. Even though not all members were protestant Christians they did all share a belief in a higher power. Though today, many seek to downplay or ignore this aspect of the declaration, a little honest study reveals that this common set of values was instrumental in guiding their efforts.

4. They did not rush to judgment. Though today we look at July 4th and the date of the Declaration of Independence, the meeting in Philadelphia started in June and in fact, the cauldron of discontent had been boiling for many years.  The delegation was actually the last part of what had been a very lengthy and considered discourse.

5. They were willing to take a risk. A huge risk! Benjamin Franklin’s famous and oft-quoted plea that they must “all hang together, otherwise, most assuredly we will hang separately” was not just hyperbole. The members of the delegation knew that what they were doing would be considered treason by England and treated as a capital offense if they were unsuccessful.

Though leaders of today often live in a high stress world, few must face consequences like those who attended that delegation in 1776. The document they produced stands alone in the world’s history and is a testament to what great leadership can accomplish.

The question is, with the economic and employment situations in turmoil, and many experts predicting limited job opportunities in the near future, while some even predict catastrophe still waiting in the wings, do people really quite their jobs if they don’t have to. My experience and anecdotal evidence indicates they do, but I wanted something a little more concrete. So, I turned to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The numbers paint an interesting picture. First, they show less than 2% of employees quit their jobs in the months of the study; from April 2009 to April 2010. That seems pretty low; maybe I shouldn’t be concerned after all. But a look at the numbers behind the percentages tells an interesting story.

BLS figures project that in April of 2010, 1.9 million people quit their jobs. These are not people who were laid off or fired; those are covered in a different set of numbers. These are just employees that quit. (These numbers fluctuate over the period of the report, and the April projections are the highest since April of 2009. The highest difference is about 243,000 between January 2010 and April 2010.) It’s very difficult to say how many quit because they didn’t like their boss, but research indicates it’s fair to say that at least 50% fall in that category: and that’s probably a pretty conservative estimate. If that’s so, (and again, I think it’s very conservative) almost 1 million people just in April of 2010 quit their jobs because they didn’t like their boss. Though there are too many variables to assign an accurate dollar cost figure, I think it’s useful to look at the potential. Various studies tell us that replacing an employee can cost anywhere from 50% to 200% of their annual salary. Figure a very low-end salary of $24,000 per year. Half that is $12,000 which means that a conservative estimate of the cost of replacing 1 million of the employees who quite in April of 2010 is more than $12 billion dollars!

While perhaps these numbers are a little difficult to grasp, they demonstrate that while employee turnover because of people who quit doesn’t seem all that high in the aggregate, it is costing a lot of money, and no matter how many employees you have, you’re paying that money when one quits because they aren’t happy with their boss.

My own experience tells me that bosses are ineffective (and therefore disliked) by employees for two reasons. First they don’t receive sufficient, or sometimes any, training in managing the human resource. Second, they often don’t know what the company’s mission really is, so they find it difficult to motivate their employees to help accomplish that mission. Together, those two failings seem to be costing companies over $12 billion a month!

Do you know where your business or organization is going?

Do your leaders and managers know where you want your business or organization to go?

Do your employees know what their part is in the business or organization’s success?

If you can’t answer yes to all three questions, you need to plan for the future!

Strategic Planning has earned a bad name. That’s becasue it has become complicated and very time consuming. Most plans just sit on the shelf after they’re completed (if they’re eve completed) and the people who are supposed to implement them never see them.

This seminar will present my strategic planning model. Developed over the last 20 years, this model produces a complete strategic plan that is understandable and actionable at all levels of the organization. The model has been used successfully in many different types of organizations.

The Roswell, NM seminar will be at the Roswell Chamber of Commerce from 9 – 1145, Jun 17th. The Albuquerque, NM seminar will be at the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce from 9 – 11 AM on July 12th. The seminar is free for members of the respective chambers and you can register with them.