Spin Doctor

On Fox News Sunday this morning, White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, claimed that Scott Brown’s Massachusetts Senatorial victory was not a comment on Obama’s administration and policy agenda, rather an endorsement of them.

Echoing the message of the Prez, who said just a couple days earlier,

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they’re frustrated, not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened in the last eight years.”

Gibbs said,

“I think people are angry in this country — they were angry in Massachusetts — that we haven’t made more progress on the economy.”

Host, Chris Wallace, was quick to point out that it wasn’t the same “anger” that swept Obama into office, because Brown campaigned against the Obama agenda. After all, Brown’s platform was:

• stop Obamacare,
• cut taxes,
• end backroom deals with special interest, and
• don’t give terrorists Miranda rights.

Still, Gibbs continued to spin,

“Well, that may be what he campaigned on, but that’s not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington.”

( sigh )

Motivation in the Worlplace

Motivation is defined as the processes that account for an individual’s intensity, direction and persistence of effort toward attaining a goal. Motivation is the key to performance improvement. There’s a saying that you can take a horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink. The horse will only drink if it’s thirsty and the same is true of people. They will only do what they are motivated to do. For an employee to excel they must be motivated to do it. This motivation can be internal (self-motivated) or external.

The best type of motivation is self-motivation. The person who is driven to excel due to some inward catalyst needs little guidance or oversight. Those who are not self- motivated will need some attention. For anyone can be motivated, it’s a skill that must be learned. Motivation is an essential ingredient for effective performance. How well employees perform will determine the organizations success or failure.

Performance (P) is considered to be a function (f) of ability (A) and motivation (M), thus: P=f(A)(M). Ability depends on education, experience and training, and increasing an employee’s ability can be a slow process. On the other hand motivation can be improved quickly. As a guideline, there are seven methods for motivation:

1. Positive reinforcement: Rewarding an employee for displaying desired behavior. Praising employees who do things right and setting the bar high to encourage them to excel to greater heights.
2. Negative reinforcement and punishment: Negative reinforcement is the removal of something the employee doesn’t like when he demonstrates the desired behavior. Punishment, on the other hand, is a form of discipline and is used to get rid of unwanted behavior in an employee.
3. Treating people fairly: Basically this is accomplished by living by the “Golden Rule”
4. Satisfying employees’ needs: According to Maslow’s hierarchy, if an employees safety and security needs aren’t satisfied, he can’t move on to higher level needs. The effective manager ensures the employee’s basic needs are met and guides him in the attainment of higher level needs.
5. Setting work related goals: In meeting the needs of the individual and the organization, the manager will help the employee establish goals that will satisfy individual needs and meet the more global needs of the organization.
6. Restructuring jobs: This involves analyzing job tasks to identify functions that are performed, but aren’t essential, and to match the job with the employees skill and abilities.
7. Base rewards on job performance: This involves setting performance goals and recognizing employees who exceed those goals.

These are the basic methods for motivation and will vary from workplace situation to situation. Motivation is key to performance. Basically the difference between the employee’s current performance level and the desired performance level will determine what areas the manager needs to address. The gap between the present state and the desired state must be overcome for the employee and the organization to achieve success. Motivation is a means to reduce and manipulate this gap and must be tailored to the situation and the organization.

Leadership vs. Management

Leadership and management are closely related and yet can be very different. There is actually a reciprocal relationship between the two, that is, an effective manager must have leadership skills, and an effective leader must also possess management skills.

According to leadership author Warren J. Bennis:

“The manager administers; the leader innovates. The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective. The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why. The manager has his eye on the bottom line; the leader has his eye on the horizon. The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.”

This implies that the difference in leadership and management lies with perspective. The leader’s view of the future has to do with vision, that is, envisioning tomorrow’s achievement. The manager, on the other hand, views the future through the lens of a process needed to achieve tomorrow’s goals:

• Managers ask how and when, leaders ask what and why
• Managers focus on systems, leaders focus on people
• Managers do things right, leaders do the right things
• Managers maintain, leaders develop
• Managers rely on control, leaders inspire trust
• Managers have a short-term perspective, leaders have a longer-term perspective
• Managers accept the status-quo, leaders challenge the status-quo
• Managers have an eye on the bottom line, leaders have an eye on the horizon
• Managers imitate, leaders originate
• Managers emulate the classic good soldier, leaders are their own person
• Managers copy, leaders show originality

Generally speaking, leaders are concerned about people and managers concern themselves with tasks. This doesn’t mean the leader isn’t concerned about the task. If the leader isn’t task-oriented to some extent, he could never achieve anything. The difference between the leader and the manager is that the leader knows he achieves because the people perform, whereas the manager may not.

A manager is responsible for using resources to accomplish the mission. The tendency to treat people as simply a resource may get the mission accomplished for the manager, but performance levels will be difficult to sustain. The leader realizes how important the people are to the organization and he lets them know it. This inspires them to achieve more.

As I’ve previously stated, leadership is the art of influencing and directing people to accomplish the mission. Management is the manner in which resources are used to achieve objectives. Leaders should also be aware of their responsibility to managers. British Field Marshall Lord Slim made a clear distinction:

“There is a difference between leadership and management. The leader and the men who follow him represent one of the oldest, most natural, and most effective of all human relationships. The manager and those he manages are the later product with neither so romantic, nor so inspiring a history. Leadership is the spirit, compounded of personality and vision–its practice is an art. Management is of the mind, more a matter of accurate calculation, statistics, methods, timetables, and routine–its practice is a science. Managers are necessary; leaders are essential.

Although I perform management functions within my organization, I consider myself first and foremost, a leader. I have a staff of 130 who perform the mission. My responsibility is basically to organize, train and equip the men and women in my charge.

I rely on management skills to do much of my work. I plan work assignments and develop production schedules; I develop and execute an operational budget; I evaluate personnel, products and processes; and I facilitate change. However, “I” accomplish these tasks through a collection of dedicated and highly trained professionals.

I enjoy the opportunity to delegate the majority of managerial tasks I’m responsible for. I enjoy getting my hands dirty alongside some of my junior members and teaching them new ways to accomplish a task. I enjoy the luxury of big picture thinking, conveying a vision to my staff and watching them work the details. Finally, I enjoy the opportunity to mentor the members of my organization and watch them achieve things they never thought possible (both personally and professionally). As former Secretary of State, Colin Powell said, “Leaders have the ability to inspire others to achieve what managers say isn’t feasible.”

Yes, Reid is a Racist

Page 37, of journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s book, Game Change, recounts a “private” remark made by Senator Harry Reid about Barack Obama’s racial appeal. According to Heilmann and Halperin, Reid thought

“the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’”

Translation: “Obama’s pretty white for a black guy.”

Racist? You betcha.

Of course, the liberals, democrats, et. al., say it’s no big deal…

A blatant double standard!

Reid’s gotta go!

The Study of Leadership

Over the years, researchers have developed the following theories about leadership:

• Trait
• Behavioral
• Contingency
• Transformational

Trait theories were developed in the 1920s and 1930s and focused on identifying characteristics that differentiated leaders from non-leaders. These theories focused on “what” an effective leader is, but didn’t identify “how” leaders led. This approach assumes certain physical, social and personal characteristics are inherent in all leaders. Sets of traits and characteristics were identified to assist in selecting the right people to become leaders. Physical traits include things like age, height and appearance. Social characteristics include charisma, tactfulness and popularity. Self-confidence, adaptability and assertiveness are examples of personality. Finally, task-related characteristics include drive and initiative.

The trait theory is still used today. When a manager interviews potential employees, he is assessing whether or not the prospective employee has “what it takes” to make it in the organization. The manager considers the candidates appearance, education and responses to questions in making the decision whether of not to hire the individual. This approach is relevant to an extent because it allows the manager to develop an impression of the prospective employee based on a limited amount of information. However, trait theory doesn’t distinguish a leader from a follower, the situation does.

Behavioral theories propose that leadership can be taught. Researchers developed leadership behavior determinants, so managers could be trained to be leaders. For example “theory X and Y” represent the different ways the manager views employees. The “theory X” manager believes employees are motivated by money; whereas the “theory Y” manager believes that employees are motivated by some intrinsic force. In this instance, the manager would determine which employee view he used and could adapt his leadership style to compensate.

The key to behavioral theory is that the manager knows himself. Knowing personal strengths and weaknesses is important to successful leadership. The leader must recognize his capabilities and limitations. Former Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Robert D. Gaylor said,

“Sure, everyone wants to be an effective leader, whether it be in the Air Force or the community. You can and will be if you identify your strengths, capitalize on them and consciously strive to reduce and minimize the times you apply your style inappropriately.

The contingency leadership theory involves adapting behavior to meet the needs of the people relevant to a particular managerial situation. Contingency theory adds the environment to the leadership situation. How leaders adapt their style to the demands of the environment will ultimately determine their effectiveness. This theory was the result of Fred Fiedler’s 40-year study of leadership and organizational effectiveness.

Fiedler’s theory states that there is not just one way for a manager to lead. The situation the manager encounters at any given time will determine which style he uses. In an environment where the tasks performed are routine in nature (i.e. telemarketing), a leadership style may be employed that would not be as effective in a more dynamic (i.e. clinical research) environment.

In developing this theory Fiedler determined that managers were either task-centered or relationship-centered. Task-centered managers may do better in a more formalized environment with centralized authority. The relationship-centered manager may have an advantage in organizing teams to accomplish a task. Both managers can be equally effective and the key is to adapt your style (i.e. task, relationship or a combination of both) to environmental demands.

A logical development of contingency theory is Ken Blanchard’s situational leadership theory. Blanchard takes Fiedler’s theory one-step further by incorporating the maturity of the follower (i.e. willingness to perform the task) to the application of leadership style. Contingency and situation leadership are transactional, in that managers guide followers by clarifying the role and task requirements.

Finally, transformational leadership theory is a mixture of trait and behavioral theories. Unlike situational leaders, who are transactional, transformational leaders are charismatic visionaries who inspire followers to transcend their own self-interest to obtain greater achievement for the organization. These managers empower employees to break out of paradigms and think of new ways of doing things. Transformational leadership employs management by exception and the leader only takes the initiative when a problem arises that personnel can’t resolve.

I’ve discussed four leadership theories developed over the years. The strength of the theory is relative and is determined ultimately by the situation to which it is applied. The bottom line is each theory has merit and there is no best way to measure a leader or a leader’s effectiveness.

The Buck Stops (short of) Me…

Presumably channeling Harry Truman, President Obama says,

“The buck stops with me”

with regard to the government’s failed attempt to identify and stop Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, from boarding an international flight bound for Detroit. The Prez says,

“I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer … When the system fails, it is my responsibility.”

Many are praising the Prez for his leadership in this situation, but not me.

A true leader doesn’t take almost two weeks to step-up and accept responsibility, which is exactly what Obama did. You also can’t step up and say “the buck stops with me” when you’ve already publicly chastised your intelligence community for their failure. Finally, you can’t say “the buck stops with me” and then have your subordinate follow-up saying it’s his fault, just as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John Brennan did when he said,

“I told the President today I let him down…”

Shame on you Mr. President! It must have been very difficult for you to accept responsibility for failures within your administration. You must have felt you had no other choice in the matter, otherwise, I believe you would’ve passed the buck completely. Instead, you’ve covertly transferred responsibility to an underling. This is despicable. Your desire to remain above the fray at what seems any cost is the ultimate in selfishness.

Leadership requires just the opposite. A selfless leader sacrifices personal requirements for a greater cause. Leadership contains two fundamental elements: the mission and the people. A willingness to sacrifice is intrinsic to successful public service, and the leader can’t place his own comfort or convenience before the mission or the people. Selflessness also includes the courage to face and overcome difficulties. While courage is often thought of as an unselfish willingness to confront physical dangers, equally important (and more likely to be tested on a daily basis) is the moral courage to make difficult decisions. General Douglas MacArthur said,

“No nation can safely trust its martial honor to leaders who do not maintain the universal code which distinguishes those things that are right and those things that are wrong.”

It requires courage and strength of character to confront a tough situation head-on rather than avoiding it by passing the buck to someone else.

I’m afraid you simply don’t have what it takes to be a leader, Mr. Prez.

Iran Rejects Nuclear Fuel Swap Deal

Two days after an end-of-the year deadline, Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rejected a United Nations-brokered “tentative” deal (i.e. ultimatum) to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel or face sanctions. The move should come as no surprise since Tehran had already made it clear that it wouldn’t abide by the deal, which required Iran to ship much of its low-enriched uranium out of the country where it would be further enriched, but turned into a form that would be difficult to use for weapons. The drawback for Iran is that it would be without its nuclear fuel for period of time, and was really nothing more than a stopgap measure to allow the West more time to negotiate a more permanent solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

So, rather then sit idle, Tehran has offered an ultimatum of its own: accept Iran’s counterproposal, which likely calls for a simultaneous uranium swap in Iran or Turkey, a deal already rejected by the West, since it would not delay Iran’s ability to produce a weapon, or it would begin producing its own nuclear fuel. The West has a month to respond.

Once again, Iran has rejected President Obama, who had postured that December represented “a very real deadline” for Iran. White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said that the UN Security Council + Germany (P5+1) were all on board with the deadline:

“I think that the international community is united in this. This is not (just) something that the (US) president has said… This is something that the members of the P5+1 have said,” … “That’s why we are at the point where we are now with the international community waiting to see and have been waiting to see for months whether Iran will live up to its responsibilities.“

Well, they haven’t, and all eyes are on you, Mr. Obama.

Whatcha gonna do?

Why We Fail

The Prez will be spending the weekend reviewing information from his intel folks on our airline security failures. It appears the central focus is deficiencies in our network of watch lists, a system designed after 9-11 to prevent potential terrorists from boarding planes. Government audits uncovered problems in recent years, including gaps that resulted in suspected terrorists from being added to the U.S.’s no-fly list. These gaps came to serious light when the failure to coordinate and share information about “Christmas Day Bomber”, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, allowed him to board an international flight to Detroit with explosives sewn into his underware.

The administration’s response was to add more security measures, like no bathroom breaks, no items in your lap, no access to carry on luggage and no use of in flight entertainment for the last hour of flight (increased security or just irritation?). Oh, and an effort to place more potential terrorists on the no-fly list. Additionally, Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has dispatched a team to meet with leaders from major airports abroad to review security procedures and technology being used to screen passengers on flights bound for the U.S. This review is expected to take weeks.

“Weeks”

Meanwhile we continue to aggravate passengers with inane security measures that really do nothing to thwart the would-be terrorist attacker. The problem with U.S. airline security is that everyone is treated as an equal threat. It doesn’t matter if you’re a 90-year old woman in a wheelchair or a 23-year-old male traveling alone who had recently been in Yemen! So, what else can we do?

NPR reports that the Transportation Security Administration has tried to augment its screening procedures by training personnel to detect suspicious behavior by passengers. Of course, TSA is quick to point out that their behavior detection methods do not equate to profiling. According to Tom Blank, a former TSA official:

“Over the past couple of years, TSA has developed a behavior detection capability that is really not profiling — in fact, it’s rooted in some of the surveillance of U.S. retail operations,” [and] “It doesn’t have anything to do with religious belief, gender or ethnicity.”

Why not?

Considering more than half of the world’s terrorist organizations are Muslim in origin and function, but Muslims only account for 20% of the world’s population, should give us serious pause (h/t: Jihad Watch). By ignoring this fact the TSA’s non-profiling behavioral detection methods come up short. Especially when compared to a country like Israel, a perpetual terrorist target and well-known for its aggressive airline security.

Passengers flying from Tel Aviv are interrogated thoroughly about everything from their travel history to their family ties, and some are exhaustively searched based on the suspicions of security personnel. According to former US Transportation Department inspector general, Mary Schiavo,

“Israeli security in the blink of an eye would have pulled out a 23-year-old male traveling alone who had recently been in Yemen,” … “His luggage would have been completely searched. He would have been completely searched.”

but…

“One of the major differences between us and Israel is that part of their profiling does include nationality, national origin, race, religion, age and physical appearance,” … “We do not include those things, because we are the United States of America and we have different standards.”

And this is why we fail.

MORE: Hot Air, here and here; Joshua Pundit; Reuters; Daniel Pipes; Airline Reporter; Patrick Madrid.

An Old Charge for the New Year!

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
- John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

Theses are important words, and an important message, as we enter a new year facing more government intrusion into our lives. Benevolent-sounding legislation, like the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,” “Net Neutrality,” the “Fairness Doctrine,” and the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” are an affront to individual liberty and consolidate power to a central government. These days could easily have been scripted from the pages of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Just as Atlas predicted, the incompetent boobs who run their companies into the ground are being treated as victims, while the resourceful entrepreneur who dares to make a profit is vilified as a greedy, opportunistic “fat cat” who is building his fortune on the backs of those less fortunate.

It must stop now! Remember Galt’s words…

Good-Bye, 2009!