When I look at reviews on Amazon, for example, I often see people lamenting that they cannot give a product "zero stars." I was recently reflecting on Likert-scale questions. I think, when translating the options (often Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree) to a numerical scale, the scale should be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 rather than 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This way a "Strongly Disagree" becomes zero points.
As my brilliant idea catches on, it may necessitate that, when reporting results, you also provide the translation between the words and the scale. Or, at a minimum, report that the scale is 0-based.
Friday, September 21, 2018
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
Early morning thoughts on leadership
Yesterday I attended a town hall. Throughout the presentation, the people on the stage referred to the other people on the stage as "leaders." I've been thinking about leaders.
In the US corporate world, people in management positions refer to themselves as leaders (or refer to their colleagues as leaders and figure that since their colleagues refer to their colleagues as leaders, they are one through association). Are they? What makes them a leader?
By definition, isn't a "leader" one who has followers? I thought it was that simple, but when I looked up the definition of a leader, I couldn't find one that said, "a leader is someone whom other people follow." So, I get I'm working off a non-standard definition.
I knew a guy in church once who referred to himself as a leader. I thought that was ironic as his scriptural canon has a phrase attributed to the god he worshipped saying, "Come, follow me." I wondered how he (the church guy) figured he'd inserted himself between the divine and his fellow worshippers. That brought up the question: can you follow two people at once?
Once, a long time ago, I saw a video taken of some troops advancing through some forested terrain. I think it was during WW II. The video showed the "leader", with pistol in hand, urging his troops forward. I don't think they were under fire at the time, but were probably about to be. It wasn't until recently that I realized that the "leader" had the pistol in his hand not to shoot the enemy, but to shoot his "followers" (they were all carrying rifles - which is what you use to shoot the enemy) should they not do what he told them. "Leadership" must have a range. The guy with the pistol at one end of the scale and the other end occupied by someone who politely says, "Come, follow me."
I think, for most people in corporate environments, if they weren't getting paid, they'd not follow the people on the stage. Anywhere.
If you think you're a leader in business, ask yourself this question. "Would the people you "lead" follow you if they weren't getting paid?" If the answer is no, you're not a leader. You're a manager.
But, don't feel badly about that. As a manager, you have two important things you do: get results and alleviate suffering. I learned about the "get results" stuff from the guys at Manager Tools (manager-tools.com) [you should watch this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_WxUgIskk]. I learned about "alleviate suffering" from my experience in the corporate world. There's so much needless suffering out there caused by poor management. Good managers are a rare. Rare indeed. If you can manage in a way that you do no harm, you're in the top 15% of all managers and should be proud of what you do!
BTW, the guys at Manager Tools have the best actionable advice on being a manager that I've ever come across. You should visit their site: manager-tools.com (not a paid advertisement). In the above linked video, Mark says a manager's responsibility is to "Get results and retain your people." He's right. My "alleviate suffering" is perhaps more of an observation on the general state of management. He's being aspirational. Go Mark.
The early morning has gone. So it must be time to submit this post.
In the US corporate world, people in management positions refer to themselves as leaders (or refer to their colleagues as leaders and figure that since their colleagues refer to their colleagues as leaders, they are one through association). Are they? What makes them a leader?
By definition, isn't a "leader" one who has followers? I thought it was that simple, but when I looked up the definition of a leader, I couldn't find one that said, "a leader is someone whom other people follow." So, I get I'm working off a non-standard definition.
I knew a guy in church once who referred to himself as a leader. I thought that was ironic as his scriptural canon has a phrase attributed to the god he worshipped saying, "Come, follow me." I wondered how he (the church guy) figured he'd inserted himself between the divine and his fellow worshippers. That brought up the question: can you follow two people at once?
Once, a long time ago, I saw a video taken of some troops advancing through some forested terrain. I think it was during WW II. The video showed the "leader", with pistol in hand, urging his troops forward. I don't think they were under fire at the time, but were probably about to be. It wasn't until recently that I realized that the "leader" had the pistol in his hand not to shoot the enemy, but to shoot his "followers" (they were all carrying rifles - which is what you use to shoot the enemy) should they not do what he told them. "Leadership" must have a range. The guy with the pistol at one end of the scale and the other end occupied by someone who politely says, "Come, follow me."
I think, for most people in corporate environments, if they weren't getting paid, they'd not follow the people on the stage. Anywhere.
If you think you're a leader in business, ask yourself this question. "Would the people you "lead" follow you if they weren't getting paid?" If the answer is no, you're not a leader. You're a manager.
But, don't feel badly about that. As a manager, you have two important things you do: get results and alleviate suffering. I learned about the "get results" stuff from the guys at Manager Tools (manager-tools.com) [you should watch this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA_WxUgIskk]. I learned about "alleviate suffering" from my experience in the corporate world. There's so much needless suffering out there caused by poor management. Good managers are a rare. Rare indeed. If you can manage in a way that you do no harm, you're in the top 15% of all managers and should be proud of what you do!
BTW, the guys at Manager Tools have the best actionable advice on being a manager that I've ever come across. You should visit their site: manager-tools.com (not a paid advertisement). In the above linked video, Mark says a manager's responsibility is to "Get results and retain your people." He's right. My "alleviate suffering" is perhaps more of an observation on the general state of management. He's being aspirational. Go Mark.
The early morning has gone. So it must be time to submit this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)