The troops weren’t happy with the country’s leadership.

A lot of hyperbole had been generated during the previous two years about the Nazi threat to the United States. Because of America’s general isolationist attitude, a consequence of post-World War One, there had been significant resistance to assisting Great Britain, despite Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s valiant efforts to secure the country’s commitment. President Roosevelt, although understanding the situation in Europe, waffled.

By mid-1941 morale among U.S. troops had reached a new low. Soldiers spoke of going absent without leave (AWOL) or even mutinying against the leadership. When soldiers watched newsreels where President Roosevelt and General George Marshall appeared they actually booed. Such was the frustration among enlisted soldiers, many of whom had been drafted.

Back in their home towns, their friends were earning six to seven times as much working in factories producing material for the war effort. Meanwhile, soldiers were kept busy peeling potatoes, digging latrines and doing endless drills, with the ostensible goal of preparing for war.

Public opinion polls revealed that Americans were conflicted on whether their country should enter the war. One Gallup survey found that about three quarters of the respondents said they favored going to war if it meant defeating the Axis (Germany, Japan and Italy), and 80% stated they believed that the U.S. would eventually go to war. However, the same percentage replied no when asked if the country should enter war now.

And then there was the hot-button topic of conscription, whose legislation was passed by Congress in September 1940. Although draftees were limited to a 12 month tour of duty, the imminent loss of 70% of 1.4 million soldiers by fall 1941 prompted the use of an escape clause allowing tours to be extended in the case of national interest.

Life magazine’s research found that in late summer 1941 that around half of enlisted soldiers considered deserting if they weren’t discharged at the end of their 12 month tour. The very poor morale among the troops produced a great deal of outrage across the U.S., both from those who wanted the problem corrected and from others who believed that Life was overstating the situation.

While recounting this story may want to make some of you yawn, please don’t.

At least not yet if you care about those who serve your country and, in a non-military context, how leadership is practiced regardless of situation.

At the core of this issue is one simple word: PURPOSE.

It’s what drives the human condition, what motivates us to get up in the morning and what, in certain circumstances, propels some individuals to risk their lives for others.

Looking back at the young men in 1941, they clearly lacked a sense of purpose. America at the time was torn between two opposing philosophies: isolationism (strongly advocated by America First) versus actively supporting Great Britain to confront the Nazi threat.

Bring this into a modern globalization, non-military context (putting aside ongoing geo-political tensions) and you have a recipe for frustrated and confused employees who are desperately trying to decipher what is going on in their organizations. Or if you work in a public service or not-for-profit organization, you’re equally trying to read the tea leaves to figure out what’s going on. Some questions you may have include:

• Where is my organization going?
• What are its priorities?
• What are its core values?
• Where do I fit in?
• What is my role?
• How do I add value?

History is an exceptionally good teacher. Yet human beings have a propensity to keep repeating the same mistakes, time and time again.

The young men and women who valiantly served their countries–America, Canada, Great Britain, Australia–now almost seven decades ago offer poignant leadership lessons. We shouldn’t have to reinvent them.

It’s about clarity of purpose, contribution and how to bring out the best from each individual.

Take some reflection time to ponder this.

Read a history book.

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
– Winston Churchill

Meet Roger Schwarz, an established leadership presence.

CEO of Roger Schwarz Associates and an organizational psychologist, Schwarz is a long-time respected thought leader and advisor to corporations, public service agencies and not-for-profit organizations. His earlier book The Skilled Facilitator is still a go-to reference source. He holds a Ph.D. in organizational psychology from the University of Michigan.

His new book Smart Leaders Smarter Teams: How You and Your Team Get Unstuck to Get Results, is definitely a keeper. Instead of being a tomb of leadership philosophy, padded with the requisite verbiage, Roger gets to the point. This concise book of some 225 pages is slim to pack along while business travelling or squeeze into a tight office bookshelf.

Schwarz aims his book at mainly those leading teams–people with formal authority in terms of how their teams are designed and operate, and who hold final accountability. However, don’t let that deter you. For example, if you’re an up-and-comer who has a passion to learn about leadership and the effective functioning of teams, this book is for you. If you’re a member of a team with a vested interest in helping it achieve higher performance, check out this book. And if you do consulting work related to leadership and teams, this book’s a must-read.

Schwarz starts off talking about why teams get stuck, introducing two contrasting concepts: unilateral control and mutual learning. It’s his concept of mutual learning that is basis of the book. He describes in two consecutive chapters eight mutual learning behaviors. He guides the reader on how to develop a mutual learning mindset and how to put it into action.

The premise for what he calls mindset is derived from the 1970s work of Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, whom he acknowledges. Argyris is recognized for his concept of mental models and the Ladder of Inference, the latter of which Schwarz uses later in his book as an illustration.

He defines mindset as “…the set of core values and assumptions from which individuals and groups operate.” And continues: “…virtually all leaders tend to use what I call a unilateral control mindset, despite the negative results it generates.” He provides the link to his website where the reader can take a short survey to determine what is at the heart of a problem of a team’s performance.

At the heart of a leader understanding the mutual learning mindset is the leadership concept of Power With versus Power Over. Until a leader sincerely grasps this distinction, it will be impossible for that individual to make solid personal improvements in his or her leadership practice, or gains in the team’s effectiveness. A Power Over approach with people involves unilateral control behavior. The “leader” makes the decisions, often under the pretense of “team” decisions. In this type of setting, decisions are typically or poorer quality, compared to when people are truly engaged–Power With.

It may seem to some leaders a daunting exercise to re-orient their teams to improved functioning and performance. This is especially true if there are deep-seated problems within the team. However, when feeling powerless in such a situation remembering these words from Roger Schwarz’s will help serve as a compass to the leader who is committed to positive change:

When the entire team has a shared understanding of and commitment to a common purpose and values, then the purpose and values themselves become guides by which team members can each assess their own performances. In effect, every team member can lead using the purpose and values as a guide….When you choose to make purpose and core values central to the team, not only do you increase team members’ accountability, you also increase your own.

Smart Leaders, Smarter Teams is a solid book. My main disappointment is the last two chapters, on Becoming a Smarter Leader and Becoming a Smarter Team, which don’t pack the same punch as the rest of the book. They lacked the energy and more innovative way of talking about how to create and sustain a culture of mutual learning and its impact on how leadership is perceived and practiced in organizations.

However, no work of art is perfect. Smart Leaders, Smart Teams is still a superior management book which would be a clear asset on the bookshelves of any leader or team member.

Be sure to check it out.

Getting your entire team to use a mutual learning approach is much more powerful than changing your own approach alone. As a team you can learn faster and achieve better results quicker.
– Roger Schwarz

Since we were both tired we stayed close to the hotel for our last supper. We selected what appeared to be a nice restaurant on well-known Crescent Street. The Sir Winston Churchill is a multiplex eatery, founded in the mid-Sixties. It looked to be pretty decent and we were served promptly by a friendly male server.

We ordered our drinks and watched the NHL hockey game between the Ottawa Senators and Pittsburg Penguins (which a week later didn’t end as a happy story for this Sens fan). When it came time to order our meal Sue carefully explained her allergy to tomatoes. Our server took note and sent in our order.

However, when our meal arrived Sue checked her plate and discovered bits of tomato on her food. Our server apologized and quickly returned her meal to the kitchen. This proved to be disappointing since having both meals arrive together is what makes dining out more pleasurable. The situation deteriorated further when her new meal arrived, only to discover that her meat was raw in the middle.

We didn’t see our server for a while and by then we were both annoyed enough to just want to leave. We did explain the double faux-pas to our server who apologized. That’s when Sue, who usually doesn’t complain, asked to speak to the manager-on-duty. Our server immediately went in search of him, only to return 10 minutes later to say that the manager said he was too busy to talk to us and that he would “comp” Sue’s meal for free.

That wasn’t Sue’s intention. She simply wanted to explain the importance of listening to the customer and to ensure that those in the kitchen doing the food prep pay attention to the servers. Our server was apologetic, and I told him that he’d done all he could and that we appreciated his efforts. But the Sir Winston Churchill restaurant failed miserably in satisfying two diners who will never return there and who will share their experience with others.

The restaurant space is highly competitive, with businesses competing for what I’ll call share of stomach. Reputations can be damaged quickly through indifference and poor service. The Sir Winston Churchill will likely carry on without blinking an eye (though I did post a comment on its Facebook page).

In an age of social media, where more businesses are seeking a web presence, it will be interesting to see what impact negative feedback will play in how successful they are. In the old days, word spread by mouth among friends and acquaintances. Now it travels in nano-seconds via bits and bytes.

As a business owner operating in a digital environment, it’s YOUR responsibility to ensure that your employees, especially your managers, are 100% aligned with your vision, operating values and customer service ethic. Remember these three customer service rules on the role of the leader:

1) Be present with your customers and employees, not just physically but emotionally.

3) Listen carefully to the nuances from employees and customers when they speak. What are they not saying?

Our experience at the Sir Winston Churchill deteriorated because of a manager who was indifferent to his customers. To say that you’re too busy is unacceptable. This situation would never happen in the company where I work part-time, a global home improvement chain. A manager who said that he or she was too busy to talk to a customer would be severely reprimanded, if not worse.

Our waiter that evening was abandoned by management, left to fend for himself. We actually felt bad for him since he tried to address our problem, both with the kitchen staff and then with his manager.

Customers are why any business exists. They are its lifeblood. The day a business loses sight of this is the day it begins a steady decline to irrelevance.

The magic formula that successful businesses have discovered is to treat customers like guests and employees like people.
– Tom Peters

In a period of unrelenting global turmoil, whether financial meltdowns, political upheavals in totalitarian-run countries or violent hurricanes that devastate communities, it’s vital that each of us learn to adapt continuously. Looking in the rearview mirror of what was, as nostalgically appealing as it may be, serves us poorly. That precarious route leaves us inadequately equipped to deal with change.

This brings me to the growing gap in the United States between reality and fantasy, where the tiny percentage of the “Haves” (the now infamous one percent) is steadily distancing itself from the rest of the population. And for my fellow Canadians we, too, are following this trend. So lose any smugness you may be holding.

The 1% control the 99% through manipulation and deceit, letting them think and dream that they, too, one day can become rich and powerful. That is not the American dream; that is the American fantasy.
– James Taggart

Many, many years ago–indeed it was 1977–when I was completing my first degree in economics, my international trade prof made a statement I’ve never forgotten: “It is the Middle Class that is the source of a nation’s innovation.” Hence the importance of creating and maintaining a robust Middle Class to drive innovation forward. I’ve never forgotten that point by Prof Don MacCharles.

Yet what we’re seeing in North America, especially America (but not to forget our friend Great Britain) is the continuing erosion of the Middle Class. In 1983, Robert Kuttner wrote a landmark essay The Declining Middle.

Unfortunately, the link between innovation and the Middle Class has never been well articulated by economists, policy wonks and business analysts, past and present, including Kuttner.

A second key point (again, courtesy of Prof MacCharles) is that one measure of a country’s wealth is its level of imports. This idea would be heresy by right wing conservatives.

While Kuttner was ahead of the pack with his prognostications, what emerged much later in some policy circles was the question of whether knowledge jobs in the service sector would make up for the loss of manufacturing and resource depletion jobs. A tangential point to this is that while many economists and others bought into the “knowledge jobs” nonsense (including corporately funded think tanks in North America), believing that job creation was healthy, they omitted to mention that what was sustaining aggregate demand to a large extent was consumer credit. Well, that balloon is steadily being deflated as we all know.

What I find shocking is that almost no “experts” have written about how transnational corporations, which hold no allegiance to any nation, have greatly broadened their markets globally. These companies are looking beyond their traditional main markets (ie, the U.S., but including Canada and Western Europe) to new ones in China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, parts of Africa, South America, Turkey, etc. In effect, transnationals could care less about the socio-economic polarization of the United States, the decline of the Middle Class or the weakening of innovation and human capital development.

Kuttner makes a very important comment when he states:

“In theory, the shift to an economy based on services and information ought to be compatible with the equitable distribution of income and jobs. Substituting technology for human labor makes the country as a whole richer. Some economists argue that as the economy grows more productive, technology will gradually eliminate many routine, dead-end jobs, replacing them with high-skill position and more leisure for all. The market does not necessarily convert rising productivity into an acceptable distribution of income and leisure, however.

The pattern of development in much of the Third World demonstrates that it’s quite possible for an economy to attain a high rate of growth based on rapid technological progress, and still function as a society in which one half of the work force waits on the other half, and makes a good deal less. Low wages tend to foster more low wages….Few economists expect the booming high-technology field to be an important source of new jobs: its productivity is too high.”

Remember: Kuttner’s piece was written 31 years ago!

With most jobs being created at the top and the bottom of the ladder, America may have difficulty remaining a middle-class society.
– Robert Kuttner

Look at where the U.S. is now at: Educated people with plenty of experience begging for work, willing in many cases to accept an hourly rate of $7.25. College grads with ballooning student loans which they’ll never be able to pay back.

How the U.S., and Canada which is obediently trailing along, expect to sustain aggregate demand in the long-run and drive new innovation with a shrinking middle is one of those questions for people with a much higher IQ than I.

Kuttner’s concluding comment is very appropriate for our times:

The debate about the distribution of wages and the content of work has scarcely started, but it is certain to become more urgent.

So where does this leave the United States, Canada, Great Britain and a number of European countries? Searching for answers while looking through yesterday’s leadership lens won’t produce anything useful. Indeed, when a globalized world economy is combined with the controlling political influence of transnational corporations and the obsequious behavior of elected politicians, regardless of national boundary, the result will be the further polarization of society and the continuing shrinking of the Middle Class.

That’s the end of my rant. What are YOUR solutions to our dilemma?

The real question is: are America’s best days behind us? Of course they are, and always have been. We have the greatest history in the history of History. But never forget, our best days are also ahead of us and always will be. Because America also has the Greatest Future in the history of the Future. It’s the Present that’s the problem…and always will be.
– Stephen Colbert (Satirist. From America Again: Re-Becoming the Greatness We Never Were, 2012)

And then what happened in the following months?

Did you and your co-workers see concrete action by management to address your feedback? I’m not talking about such things as communication newsletters, focus groups, town halls or even one-on-one interviews to gather deeper information from employees. I’m talking about behavioral change within the organization.

A favorite strategy within many organizations is to create action–call it busyness–for inaction, the consequence of which is inertia. The deception of being busy produces nothing in the end unless people are integrated into the process of finding effective solutions for workplace problems.

Robert Gerst, a partner with Converge Consulting Group in Calgary, recently wrote a paper entitled Understanding Employee Engagement and Trust: The New Math of Engagement Surveys. The paper appeared in early 2013 in the American Society for Quality’s Journal of Quality and Participation. As the paper states:

“The dirty little secret of employee engagement surveys is that they’re largely junk science – placing the marketing objective of telling and selling a good story above the practical and ethical objective of telling the truth.”

In the process, data gathering methodologies are misused and false conclusions reached based on inaccurate statistical measures. The result is largely meaningless survey results, yet while giving the impression of scientific validity.

It doesn’t take a lot of Googling to discover hundreds–make that thousands–of websites that talk about employee engagement and their solutions. I’ll share below my own personal workplace experience with a large-scale employee survey process that spanned over a decade. But first a couple of observations.

The definition of insanity has been described as expecting a different result while doing the same thing over and over again. This describes employee engagement surveys.

Psychologist (Yale and Harvard) and the creator of Double Loop Learning and many more concepts Chris Argyris talked years ago about the folly of using employee questionnaire surveys as part of organizational change efforts. As he bluntly put it, these surveys place the responsibility for change with management. Employees, having done their part by completing a questionnaire, sit back waiting for management to fix the problems.

When human beings have something done TO them and not WITH them, the consequence is disempowerment. Here’s one concrete example.

During part of my three-decade career with the Government of Canada, I devoted substantial time to managing projects dealing with organizational mergers, downsizing, leadership development for middle managers, and researching and writing concept papers for senior management. I was also involved for a brief time with the Government’s introduction of its employee questionnaire survey, which began in the late nineties and which continued for over a decade.

The survey was sent out every other year to over 200,000 federal public servants spanning dozens of departments and agencies. While the survey findings varied across departments, as well as within them (across work units), the overall results were pretty dismal when viewed through a leadership lens.

Public servants felt disempowered, not listened to by management, training was inadequate, communication poor, etc. One compelling question was: “Do you believe that management will constructively address the issues raised in the survey?” (I’ve paraphrased this question).

The response to this question was consistently negative, i.e., employees didn’t believe that management would deal with the issues raised in the survey.

Canada’s Prime Minister cancelled the latest survey for budget reasons (saving some $220 million). Perhaps that was a good idea, given that the Public Service survey only reinforced the cynical attitude by many employees. Remember Chris Argyris’ viewpoint.

To say that the Public Service survey was an impotent tool devised by the federal government would be too kind a comment. In reality, it has been a decade-long example of how NOT to gather information from employees in the naïve belief that this will somehow produce a more engaged and empowered workforce.

Based on the above definition, one could conclude that insanity prevails in the upper ranks of Canada’s Public Service: management expects a different result despite nothing changing.

Don’t get caught up in the hyperbole of employee engagement. As with past fads (e.g., Business Process Re-engineering, Total Quality Circles, and the Learning Organization), the employee engagement fad is being milked for all its worth by consultants who hope to make a few bucks from it before attention turns to the next fad.

And of special importance is understanding that mouthing the words “employee engagement” by management is typically a tactic to deflect attention, however briefly, from the substantive issues facing organizations.

Creating an “engaged” workforce takes time and is a reciprocal process, in which EVERYONE in the organization must take personal responsibility and demonstrate personal action to make things better.

Take a moment to share your thoughts and experiences.

Free your mind from corporate lexicon, the status quo and bureaucratic inertia, and follow instead your self-empowered creativity to add true value to your organization.
– James Taggart

How does he keep doing it? A big head on a spindly body, wild hair and an off-key voice, all the while gyrating to 4/4 time, the basic building block of Rock ‘n Roll.

I well recall watching the Rolling Stones on black and white TV back in 1967 when I was 12 years old. Except for the well-lined craggy face, Mick Jagger looks the same and still gives electrifying performances. Countless big-time singers and musicians have come and gone during Jagger’s tenure as the Stones’ lead singer, whether from drug overdoses, unfortunate accidents or self-destruction due to lack of personal self-discipline.

I like the Stones but not a big fan, so I’m writing this post without any particular bias towards them; indeed, I’m a Jazz aficionado. But I respect those in the music industry who have staying power, whether it’s because they’ve been smart enough to evolve as they’ve aged and music tastes changed, or stayed close to their roots. Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones are the latter case.

Jagger’s disgustingly rich. He doesn’t need to perform. However, when he goes on stage he performs like a guy one third his age. He loves what he’s doing, and he looks like he wouldn’t want to be any other place at the moment except on stage: yelling, singing, thrashing his arms and legs. Not to shabby for a fellow who turns 70 years old on July 26, 2013. Reflect on that for a moment.

Why do some people get totally turned on by their careers, or perhaps a better way to describe it is a “calling.” No, you don’t have to be a multi-millionaire to be happy or fully engrossed in your vocation. I’ve met dozens and dozens of musicians over many years who’ve held down regular jobs to pay the bills. They’ll never earn much dough. However, they’re extremely passionate about what they do and their desire to share with others.

I’ve reflected many times on the joys that musicians and artists bring to the public, yet what we forget is that the vast majority will never make it big. What drives them is that they’re passionate about their calling.

Switch gears to those self-less individuals who volunteer their time to important causes, and in particular those who travel to desperately poor developing countries to offer their skills, whether as a nurse, teacher, physician, engineer or project manager. Often, these folks work in disease-filled environments or highly dangerous regions where terrorism reigns.

If you’re bound to a job that you find uninspiring, then seek out your calling. This may mean a career shift, or perhaps engaging in volunteer work or starting a new past-time. Each of us as human beings, who are here on Planet Earth for mere nano-seconds in time, need to find something, however small, that fills a personal void. I personally believe that every human being needs to leave a personal, positive mark on Earth before departing for another existence.

And no, you don’t have to try to replicate Mick Jagger. He’s obviously one of kind. The mold was broken when he was born. But YOU can find your calling. Be your own Mick Jagger.

And to Stones fans, who I can sense twitching for some tunes, check out this clip of Mick Jagger singing, backed by the legendary Jeff Beck, at the White House in February 2012.




I mean, give me a guitar, give me a piano, give me a broom and string, I wouldn’t get bored anywhere. – Keith Richards (Lead guitarist, Rolling Stones)

One of the highlights I still recall those decades ago are the wonderful people we met along the way. And some of those experiences were when the six of us paraded into restaurants and campgrounds. If you’re a parent of young kids, or have been down that road, you can relate to what can be either a fun trip to a family restaurant or descending into the bowels of hell.

Sue and I used to be so thankful of the many wonderful people who waited on us in restaurants. Their patience, humor and courtesy were extraordinary. We always left an extra big tip when we had great service. Sue made sure of that, having been a server (waitress in the old days) in high school.

I’ve always wondered why some people self-initiate to show personal leadership in customer service land. The monetary rewards are typically not very significant; more often they’re paltry. However, it’s not always that way when one enters customer service land. Before I share my amazing stories of customer service, check out this clip from the infamous Seinfeld episode of the Soup Nazi. How many of you have experienced similar customer service? And how would you react?

Let’s now look at three companies that have earned well-deserved reputations as having stellar customer service.

L.L. Bean

I don’t have to rely on others’ stories here since I’ve compiled my own from 25 years of shopping at this legendary retailer. Whether it has been using L.L. Bean’s online ordering, its call center or visiting its flagship store in Freeport, Maine, and outlet stores in Maine and New Hampshire, this company’s service is extraordinary. We’ve never had poor service, let alone mediocre service. It has always been excellent.

Indeed, when phoning L.L. Bean’s call center to order merchandise, your call is typically answered on the first ring. And if it isn’t, there’s a short note to say that no recorded music will be played while you wait for a few seconds. Thank heavens for this, when other companies insist on blasting you with obnoxious music.

Then when you’re connected with an agent, it’s like going home. I have no idea where L.L. Bean finds their employees, but it’s like talking to a long lost aunt. I love these people.

I’m a Canadian. It’s great to be a patriotic shopper; however, when you’re trying to find a product locally and cannot, or not satisfied with the quality, locating it at L.L. Bean with superb service is a true gift.

Apple Retail Stores
I’ll state up front that I don’t have any Apple products; I’m not an Apple devotee who’s part of the global tribe. However, I have a lot of respect for what Steve Jobs achieved in not just creating innovative devices using minimalist design, but also the other equally important component–service.

Entering an Apple Store is a totally different experience from shopping at, say, Best Buy, Future Shop or a long line-up of technology retailers. At Apple, you’re greeted warmly and attention is focused on your immediate needs. Indeed, an employee greets you within 10 seconds of entering the store. No frowns or bored expressions–just smiles and lots of enthusiasm.

Apple likes to use hip expressions for their retail staff, like Apple Genius, the person who will meet with you to provide the technical fix for a device that’s not working properly. An appointment is needed to see a Genius, and the Apple employee who greets you takes your photo to make it easier to find you in the store when it’s your turn.

Apple’s approach is focused on finding solutions for its existing customers and potential new ones, whether it’s repairing a device, understanding its features more thoroughly or selling the newest product. Focus on the customer, treat him or her with courtesy and respect, and solve their need or want.

Sound easy? Maybe. But it takes management commitment, leadership and sustained training and refinement to maintain that superior level of customer service.