If you need or want to BUILD LEADERS, please read this entire post, and share:
The first part of this series stated the obvious... chaos is damaging your people. Chaos' negative impact should be taken seriously, and you should have a strategy to respond. Oblivious people claim that chaos is not affecting their daily lives. Are you one of them? Of course not. Stop the chaos and get onto the path of living and working right again.
The second part of the series discussed a strategic view of human capital. Corporate Boards seem to be discussing the importance of human capital... this is encouraging. Considering the threats posed to millions of people's jobs and lives from the geometric pace of technology change through artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and other variants of automation, it's a strategic societal topic.
Chaos serves only one master... those seeking to manipulate and control. It is tied to the workplace cancer known as groupthink, which also serves to control.
DISRUPT CHAOS WITH TRUST (not compliance)
Trust in society is at an all-time low, and fear is filling the void in the absence of great leaders. You have a choice in dealing with these dynamics, and building great leaders is a strategic step.
But building leaders and educating leaders with knowledge are two distinct things, requiring different approaches. For decades, these two have been obfuscated by the massive management and leadership industry, and considered as one. This obfuscation has damaged the development of greatness based on a faulty premise.
You can be the first person in your organization to understand (above chart). I intend to enable you.
Trust must be the foundation of every successful enterprise. High trust environments are incredibly productive, healthy, and satisfying. Low trust environments are completely debilitating. The decline in trust and the rise of escapism, addiction, and mental illness are not accidents. They are intimately connected.
Having worked in both extremes of low and high trust organizations, I can attest to the dramatic differences. The best analogy I can provide is imagining yourself as either Darth Vader's pupil, or Master Yoda's. In one case, you spend all of your energy trying to avoid destruction. In the other, your stress is aimed at achieving greatness. I'll let you determine which you prefer.
Seriously, let's decompose the Darth Vader pupil with some descriptives:
And the Yoda descriptives:
Obviously, most organizations as a whole are between these extremes, but even quality organizations have groups where the dark side is operating.
If you assume your organization is high trust (we sincerely hope it is) and it is not, you're got a major problem. There are several reasons for your potentially faulty assumption:
- the annual Edelman Survey shows Trust is just above crisis levels, and in decline for years
- despite cubicle posters saying "floggings will continue until morale improves," people come to work
- if your annual HR survey is assumed to have accurate and actionable results, you may be disappointed
- if your own feedback from direct reports is your compass, you may be unaware of the truth
We propose a simple litmus test... randomly ask (poll them yourself) participants leaving meetings (at various levels and across groups) if everyone attending was encouraged to be, and actively being completely transparent, sharing everything openly, and delivering all of their talents. The results may surprise you.
While this test is simplistic, the chaos > fear behavior is widespread and damaging your people and productivity.
You need a leader program that builds trust. Hint: It's not the leadership knowledge program.
If you are experiencing elusive ROI in your leadership development efforts, is it possible that the largest segment of the management industry is serving itself, and not helping to build real leaders? Yes it is.
Before we delve into why our methodology is so disruptive and beneficial, it is helpful to understand that leadership development courses are often built to solve problems based on the available capabilities, interests, or histories of a firm. Most programs are built around:
- famous leadership authors, speakers, gurus (a publishing, print once > sell many, empire)
- consultancies seeking to offer services to executives (to stay relevant, visible, or keep billing)
- former leaders (ie. executives, coaches, others) exiting the C-level
For instance, one leadership consultancy builds a course to help strengthen focus and prioritization. Some leadership courses engage you in outdoor activity. A surprisingly few leadership courses are offered to enhance creativity and innovation. There are programs built on an experiential (or claim to be) approach in concept, using classroom simulations or interactive team projects in their curricula. And some programs use elements of competition, typically involving case studies presented to an executive panel, and some include sporting events.
Traditional programs can provide leadership development, though their effectiveness has been uneven and elusive, since they are dependent on the individual, not the design and methodology of the program.
Distinction #1: We have uniquely integrated all of these bolded elements into a single program.
Distinction #2: We build leaders. To be distinguished from teaching leadership knowledge.
Distinction #3: We have secret sauce.
The first distinction is dramatic. Our program participants receive multiplicative benefits through the integration of heretofore separate leadership program content. And, since our entire program is based on action and not lecture, our participants demonstrate leadership during the program, and their retention rates are higher.
The second distinction is equally profound, but often misunderstood by companies. The majority of leadership programs do not build leaders, they teach leadership knowledge. Knowledge has to be internalized, in some cases rehearsed, and hopefully applied (work circumstances often provide that opportunity years later) in the workplace. Often, the lessons are selectively applied due to human bias and low retention of the material.
The third distinction is discussed at the end of this post.
Building leaders in the modern age demands a far more robust metholodogy than any classroom can deliver. They must live it to prepare them for the real world of... unending, accelerating, dehumanizing, automating, and yes... chaotic change. And they should live it together, as a team (we like to call it a unit) to build bonds to help them survive chaos.
Ask yourself... what group of citizens best knows such a methodology?
Picture the most hostile environments on earth. Millennia of tribal hatred and bloodshed. Fractious and ever shifting alliances with minimal trust, and the need for deadly force at a moment's notice.
How do our American soldiers keep the peace in such hostile territory? Some people think American forces know nothing other than combat. Yes… at times, they can bring unimaginable force-multiplied projections of power. You can learn great things from that alone. Combat is an undeniably intense, but also incredibly small part of their job.
So picture this again, with the correct frame of reference. An American soldier is in a hostile, foreign land. He doesn’t speak their language, and is literally surrounded by rival factions in a lethal environment.
What's the consequence of a single miscalculation?
What could our soldiers possibly have in common with these locals? Much more than you think.
Bridging such a wide cultural gap is possible. Helping the good people come out of the shadows of fear. Demonstrating every day acts of selflessness. Trust ensues. Even some of the truly hostile, while utterly shocked, witness the amazing character of our soldiers, and respond favorably.
A miraculous shift from mortal fear to living as all humans desire... out of chaos, into freedom.
Still think a soldier doesn’t understand how to deal with chaos and change?
So, the traditional leadership program thinks... aha! I'll have a military leader speak at our program. They (and you?) still don't get it. READ ON.
Military training is based on doing, under duress, based on the experiential method. Scouts, our first responders, and the military develop leaders this way, and they develop human beings from every demographic profile. Their performance is what distinguishes them.
Nike's powerful slogan "Just Do It" expresses the DO-factor. When we see those ads, we get it. Now it's time for your leadership development people to get it.
The problem isn't with your desire to develop leaders. The problem is your approach.
An honest assessment of traditional leadership development would reveal programs built on an ancient academic classroom method. It's time to evolve.
Leadership isn't an academic discipline. It's an action and behavior discipline. And it starts with values.
When hurricane Harvey hit Texas last year, there were thousands of volunteer leaders out helping their neighbors. I would suggest that a tiny percentage of these volunteers attended Ivy League schools, graced GE's famed Crotonville campus, or listen to regular McKinsey or HBR podcasts. That is perfectly fine. Because when the world needed them... they showed up. Leading through action. Leading by example.
They didn't ask for compensation, recognition, or social media fame. Incredible humans. Great values. LEADERS
Any leadership development objective should focus on building leaders using the proper methods.
If your leadership program is based on lecture, workbooks, paper exercises, and after hours mixers, you're at the top of this pyramid (see below), which sounds great until you take a closer look at the chart. Then you realize that it is the foundation of the pyramid that provides its strength. This is the retention pyramid, and classroom programs are built on the read, hear, see method. Our disruptive experiential program is 100% built on the say, do method.
It doesn't matter if your traditional leadership course takes place atop a mountain, in a foreign country, or at an exclusive destination resort. Showing and talking about leadership does not develop leaders. Such destination programs may be a worthy reward for accomplished individuals. Most of what is learned in traditional programs can be learned from a book.
PC Alert: Not everyone is a leader.
As we're fond of saying in Texas, you can't push a rock with a string. Your selection of leader candidates should start with their character and values. Telling someone who lacks these qualities to develop leadership skills in a classroom is futile. It may be possible to develop them in an experiential program, where they must witness and have to reflect deeply on their current character.
Our program is built on leading science. Our differentiation from traditional programs will be made with a set of criteria for evaluating any leadership program:
Send your leader candidates to a program built 100% on "say + do." See the retention pyramid diagram above. Is your current program built this way?
Doing something you verbally committed to, while being witnessed... builds leaders. It not only puts the onus on the leader making the commitments, it provides them an opportunity to perform. This "arena" lets them demonstrate raw, unscripted leadership, and sometimes a lack thereof.
Since our activities are consequential, more is learned by the leader and the witnesses. In a classroom, there are no consequential tasks. If they are witnessed at all, the most significant ones are simulated. And most of the lessons are intellectual and academic... like the 1900s. Limited. Unchallenged. Even their typical "experiential" activities (faux) are inconsequential (ie. toothpick towers, trust falls, or ropes courses).
- retain more by doing
- learn more about their own capabilities and limits
- learn more about others when witnessing their performance
The brilliant ancient philosopher Plato once said, "you can discover more about a person in an hour of play than in a year of conversation." Absolutely profound... from a genius whose thinking changed the course of civilization.
Is your leadership program based exclusively on action? Very few are. Are the activities consequential? If your program is not built on consequential action, how do you honestly expect to build leaders?
If retention of expensive leadership training material is important to your participants and organization, there is simply no comparison. In the consulting world, we liked the term "takeaways".
Many customers tell us that our program changed their life. That's a takeaway.
PC Alert: Courage is mandatory to build real leaders.
For reasons beyond our comprehension, this is a controversial topic. Why? Do you seriously want to build leaders lacking in courage? Or, do you want a program that has demonstrated courage at its core?
In Winston Churchill, portrayed by Gary Oldman in the movie Darkest Hour, here is clearly an imperfect but immensely capable human, being asked to lead at a time of seemingly insurmountable evil, with virtually no supporters. Only he is courageous enough and willing to challenge conventional wisdom, rise above political hatred, and eschew groupthink at a time of great (global) need by many others. And he selflessly sacrifices under enormous duress, risking his own personal and professional situation.
Darkest Hour should be required watching... witness a leader
Fear makes the average person seek safety in numbers, the weak person cower and hide, and even some (thought to be) brave people question their strength. You've seen it. Admit it.
If you are sending leaders to a program that is not built to challenge them, demand their courage, and (ideally) do so in front of their team or peers, what do you expect in courage ROI? We suspect you've never asked yourself the question. Have you? Shouldn't you?
A "leader" lacking courage isn't; they're a catastrophe in waiting
We challenge every individual and team to overcome their fears. The amazing thing, which has enormous implications for team bonding and productivity... courage is infectious. Participants witness it in each other and themselves, and it reinforces the team unit. It is visceral... as real as it gets.
All action. No classroom compares.
If your organization has the... ahem... courage to consider evaluating and developing this vital characteristic of real leaders, then you have few options to consider. We are unwavering in our acknowledgement that courage is vital to leaders. And we have a program built to cultivate it. When you consider the high cost of quality leadership programs, you should demand a courage return on investment.
The next 5 sections are described by our unique force-multiplying FONEC methodology.
Many organizations are just now recognizing the devastating consequences of a lack of focus on their people.
I start almost every one of my conversations with prospects by asking about the behavior and productivity in their meetings. At first, this seems like a curious angle of inquiry to them. But once they discuss the dysfunction therein, they soon realize their meetings are the wasteland of unfocused behavior, and lost productivity.
We have plenty of suggestions, one of which came from our customers. The nearly universal sentiment about their meetings is that they are:
- unprepared (no advance materials or agenda)
- unproductive (not goal or task oriented)
- undocumented (not recorded, notated)
- full of distraction (phones, computers, side conversations, no moderator)
- more talk than action (driven by individual desire to be heard, not team objective to deliver)
- multiple hidden agendas (passive aggressiveness - a symptom of cultural rot)
- a stage for those lacking leadership (poor facilitation, fear of reaction, fear of challenging, groupthink)
- a stage for those wanting group therapy (excuses for lack of progress, blame game)
This isn't a device issue. It's a leadership issue.
Overwhelming data from modern science, including elements from Cal Newport's Deep Work, prove our digital device distractions are not just rude and unproductive. The habit of distraction is actually physiologically damaging our brain's ability to focus. The device behavior is reinforcing (addiction) a craving in our brain for distraction.
Focus is a crucial trait.
It is a trait of champions. It is a trait of successful businesses. It is a trait of productivity. We're living in an increasingly complex and noisy world. Focus is indispensable. A lack of focus has accumulating negative effects.
Does your leadership development program improve focus? Is it even considered in the curriculum? Remember, you're paying for that leadership program. As the retention pyramid shows us, traditional leadership courses already use a much less effective method for retention... reading, hearing, and showing.
We think you'd want maximum retention. So, even if sitting physically idle in a comfortable classroom chair temporarily increases focus (versus a noisy workplace), its low retention approach is a losing proposition.
A huge blow against chaos in the workplace can come from focus alone. Where do people learn to focus? Hint: It's not from a book or a classroom.
In our program, focus starts from the minute we depart the airport. Participants don't have the option of distraction. We engage them in activities from their arrival to departure. When you consider that our activities are consequential, focus is not just an improved learning asset. They recognize and utilize it as vital to their measurement and success.
As anyone who has taken an adventure vacation, been a participant in scouting, trained as a first responder, served in the US military, or participates in an active outdoor sports can attest, being outdoors greatly improves their well-being. There is an enormous amount of science behind this, including the anti-depression effects of Vitamin D from sunshine, increased heart rate and physical fitness, and cleaner air, just to name a few.
We deliver all of those... plus.
The benefits to the outdoors that we like to emphasize are related to Howard Gardner's long-term work on multiple intelligences. Quoting directly from his widely acknowledged book frames of mind, "a fuller appreciation of human cognitive capacities emerges if we take into account spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences (the list as of 1983). We all have these intelligences, that’s what makes us human beings, cognitively speaking. Yet at any particular moment, individuals differ for both genetic and experiential reasons in their respective profiles of intellectual strengths and weaknesses."
Note: Howard's decades of leadership in this field has contributed to the emotional intelligence quotient, or EQ.
In a nutshell, we all learn through a wide range of learning styles and sensory inputs. A few people have had clinical evaluations of their relative strengths in different learning styles. This is not a reference to MBTIs, DISCs, Circumplex, etc. Those are useful behavioral tendency and personality self-assessment tools.
Our reference is to an understanding of how we personally learn best. Parents of special needs children can better appreciate the importance of these clinical evaluations. Very few of us know this information about ourselves.
The standard corporate classroom model of teaching any subject is not designed to accommodate different learning styles. Programs and people ignorantly assume that if they're accomplished enough to attend a prestigious leadership course, they can optimally learn from lectures, booklets, and powerpoint. Wrong.
Modern elementary and secondary classrooms have adapted their teaching methods to accommodate the range of styles, and the kids and teachers are being rewarded. The only way to stimulate a diverse team for optimal impact is to build a program with a variety of approaches.
We do that.
Does your leadership course even acknowledge learning style differences? The overwhelming answer is... no.
Our program is consciously built to expose each participant, in both an individual and team context, to a variety of learning styles, especially kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal and intrapersonal. This attention to detail in design means that our customers learn much more. It is reflected in our NetPromoter scores, their comments, and testimonials.
The connotation of novel in this section is unique and new.
Nancy Andreasen is an American treasure. Her lifetime of research into the human mind is priceless.
While she has studied a wide range of brains, from savants to genius and autistics to "ordinary" people, one of her greatest messages is that creativity / innovation is not a “gift”. It is a pattern of behavior that can be modeled and repeated. When triggered properly, creativity surges can last in our brains for 90 days or more.
This residual effect provides a window of opportunity for teams trained together using our method to return to work neuro-charged for change and impact. In a chaotic world, this enables huge potential benefits on strategic teams, such as:
- major project teams
- new executive teams (post-acquisition / merger / divestiture)
- start-up company members / founders
- key problem-solving teams (investigative, research, new product)
- etc, etc, etc (pick yours)
Critical to innovation is perspiration (ie. Edison, Faraday, Da Vinci), but just as vital is the inspiration. Most people think of “creatives” as exclusively artists and musicians. But, as Tony Buzan (inventor of the MindMap) reminds us, everyone has billions of left and right brain connections. Every person is creative.
How much time does your leadership development program set aside for inspired creativity? None? In this competitive global market, how can you consider a leadership program without a core emphasis on innovation?
Ours is built on it.
We have designed our program using elements of Nancy's and Tony's research. Key criteria include:
- rehearsing speed of thought
- the need for alone (we call it reflection) time
- exposure to new things (neuroplasticity emphasis)
- novel and complex problem-solving activities
- flexibility of thought (my way VS team)
- multiple iterations
- imagination and association (links between things)
If the agenda of your favored leadership program has a session titled, "Innovation in the world of AI," do you think that's sufficient? We sure hope not. It is shocking, borderline negligent, to send leaders and teams to a program that doesn't equip them to innovate in this era. Their age, title, years of experience do not matter. The science of neuroplasticity should be familiar to the aging executives. Their brain health demands the creation of new neurons, and they should demand a program built to do so.
We designed a program to provoke creative thought, using the world's leading researchers knowledge.
If this comparison between our approach and the traditional approach was a softball game, the 15-run rule would be invoked. Your current program got blanked. Please read on, but you can contact us now to discuss your leadership development needs.
We operate an experiential program. It is action-based. But it also leverages corporate best practice methodologies to reinforce learning breadth and depth, long-term retention, and the benefits of a disciplined process.
Our program uses a military + scouting + corporate best practices learning loop process which:
- briefs participants on an activity (goal, safety, constraints, etc.)
- has participants do / act to solve challenges openly, freely, creatively with their skills (not ours)
- debriefs (after action) and scores the individuals and teams
- provides time for personal reflection, recording, and sharing
- "rinses and repeats" activities for the opportunity to apply lessons learned
Our co-founder spent 20 years in the US Special Forces. His professional experience... seven deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, over 150 missions, over 1,000 parachute jumps, elite training courses in survival, numerous specializations, recognition for valor, and his unique skills in rapidly developing trust while imbedded with units of Navy SEALS, Army Rangers, Green Berets, and foreign (Aussie and British) special forces units... is built from a priceless set of experiences and teachers.
Combat veteran. Humanitarian.
While the military has designed its programs based on real science, it also has centuries of experiences which have improved their design. Less than 1% of Americans currently serve in the armed forces, though many more have been exposed to their training methods. Please hire more of them as they transition back to civilian life. They're worth far more than their compensation needs.
To be VERY clear, we don't run a boot camp. Our average participant is middle-aged, with participants ranging in age from 27 to 59. Most are not in ideal physical condition. We stay active, and our participants are usually tired at the end of the program... a good tired. Work hard, deliver results, bond as a unit, and learn more about yourself and others than any time in your life.
We are inspired by two elements of military training above all others:
- the diversity of their people
- their impact on human bonding and trust
Paul Zak has studied trust for over 15 years, and all 8 of his criteria for building trust are designed into our program.
- Recognize excellence
- Induce “challenge stress”
- Show vulnerability
- Intentionally build relationships
- Facilitate whole-person growth
- Give people discretion in how they do their work
- Share information broadly
- Enable job crafting
Note: The last item (job crafting) is in the program in a temporary context... the activities we perform.
And your program's experiential design has... quiet time, hikes?
We built a program to accelerate and build unbreakable bonds of trust, through the experiential method, because human bonding is a strategic competitive weapon in the business marketplace. With today's distributed workforce, global operations, and emphasis and spend on technology as a cure-all, there's no better anecdote to chaos than human bonds.
Smart companies know this. Let us help.
The ancient Greeks immortalized competition as a core of great civilizations. Stephen Miller has written extensively on the role of Olympic competition in ancient Greece. Fortunately, much of their pioneering culture was not lost, which contributed greatly to American ideals across the millennia.
PC Alert: Competition is the breeding ground of great leaders.
Many of us instinctively, whether we participated, coached, spectated, or parented in athletics, know the importance of competition in life. It teaches direct and powerful leader traits, such as discipline, endurance, communication, diligence, teamwork, and in some cases (we hope) humility, among others.
While our competitions are designed for team-building, it is the fellowship of our customers that has taught us lessons. They have been role models in support of each other during the competitions.
Note: As cited earlier, our program operates with clients of wide-ranging physical characteristics and age. The purpose for introducing competition is not to create land speed records. It is an invaluable mechanism for getting people to:
- challenge themselves
- aspire to achievement
- elevate their heart rate
- celebrate with teammates
- engage their emotions
As Deborah Rowland, author, advisor, and former executive has studied and concluded, "we learn, retain, and change behavior best when the emotional circuits within our brain are activated. Visceral, lived experiences best activate these circuits, which helps leaders develop their 'inner' game."
What could possibly be more valuable to build your leaders?
Comparing our program to traditional leadership programs, where every element of our approach is designed for maximum impact from modern psychology, human performance, and neuroscience, and is combined with rich methodologies from the US special forces and corporate best practices, you see massive differences.
Our program has the potential for a life-changing, personal and professional transformation.
Above are 7 differentiating aspects of how we build leaders. Scrutinize your program, then challenge us to prove how we are a better and more worthy path for your leaders.
I am fond of saying, “Leadership cannot be granted, inherited, or learned from a book or class… it must be earned and witnessed by others while overcoming real challenges.” This deserves a more thorough treatment.
Granted leadership is when a person in a presumed position of leadership, usually based on title, makes a decision to grant another person a leadership role. This patriarchal and archaic system is based on centuries of cultural tradition, and has delivered mixed results. While we accept that people in higher hierarchical positions are empowered to make such decisions, most of us have witnessed the appointment of leaders who fail.
Even if the leader has been selected based on objective merit, most of the staff and surrounding players don't consider the granted person to be a leader for a period of time. They want to see how the new person responds in the role. Do they inspire? Do they delegate? Do they communicate openly... with respect? Do they make informed decisions? Real leaders can and do emerge this way. But, granting them the leadership role did not make them one. Hopefully, their witnessed successful actions did.
Wouldn't it be better to know the potential in leaders before making that decision?
We do that.
Do we seriously need to discuss the vacuous idea of inherited leadership roles? The history of the British Crown should dispel the foolishness of that approach. OK, if you're a family owned business, we understand. We can help your family, too.
Learning leadership from a course or a book has been the subject of this post.
The distinction between learning leadership knowledge (good, useful)
and building leaders (great, vital) should now be clear
We acknowledge that academic leadership learning has value. But it does not build leaders. It educates students of leadership, whether they are leader material, or not.
The traditional, truly ancient method of leadership learning should not be the exclusive approach to leadership development. Our approach is validated by leading science, and is far more impactful.
When people cite the names of great leaders, almost all great leaders achieved legendary status through incredible toil. Many of their stories are inspirational because they persevered, overcame incredible odds, and changed the world. We think a program designed to develop leaders should not just remember this, but be built for it.
So, when you're thinking about spending valuable leader funds, remember us... and disrupt.
Having spent a large portion of my career in and around new technology solutions, I've been subjected to Silicon Valley speak. One favored term is scalability. Another is secret sauce.
All the SV has spoken about for decades is scalability. It started out as “speed to process data”, moved onto “network and data integration and aggregation”, and now it’s screaming through “data science + AI + ML + etc."
So much of their passion and energy is tied into the advancement of technology that they're often blind to the human cost. The global economy and competition will ensure that technology is driven towards the singularity, whether it is ever achieved or not. Actually, we all better hope that it is not.
We are already witnessing milestone events where investments in certain technologies are geometrically displacing jobs. Those jobs represent families, and their job displacement will demand huge investments in new careers. It is a major losing proposition for the human, because the curve of displacement is growing far faster than the time it takes a person to retrain.
If this is a survival race, the machines are metaphorically killing us
The obvious implication to those of us with both eyes open is that strategic investments in our people are not only vital, they are a form of survival. People will need tighter bonds of trust than ever.
When people experience a transformative event in life, they are more likely to experience a disruptive (scalable) effect on their relationships, productivity, health, and lives. We've been blessed to guide (not direct) a wide range of amazing leaders through our program, who later:
- instituted new processes to enhance their productivity
- engaged in cross-fit and/or the paleo diet to improve their health metrics
- created new products for market
- fearlessly addressed their cultural issues
- revolutionized their approach to meetings
- started new businesses
- among many others
There are some elements of our program we don't publish or discuss. We like to call them our "secret sauce." As if the our disruptive program isn't powerful enough, our secret sauce is more effective when it is invisible to participants. This has more to do with human psychology than a desire to obscure our recipe.
While we cannot guarantee transformations, we aim for it, and have success delivering it. Likewise, we cannot guarantee unbreakable bonds of trust, though much of our program is geared for that outcome. When built, trust is durable, productivity gold.
If you've worked on a high trust team, you know the ease with which you face every challenge. Challenges are invigorating in a high trust team. The higher the challenge, the more vigor they have. When a low trust team is your only experience, you may not know how much better it can be.
We are stunned at how few leaders are openly discussing a strategy for eliminating fear and suffering in your organization, so either the fear is constraining you, or you're unaware that you're living inside a low trust cloud.
Chaos is winning if your people are afraid. Let us help you.
If trust levels are low... you all see it. You all feel it. And, you witness the effects.
I have asked numerous CEOs this question, "when you're holding a crucial meeting with your executive team, is everyone contributing everything openly?" To-date, the answer has been a universal "no." Some have said, "not even close". Incredible.
Millions of dollars of payroll at the table, and they can't get their top executives to thrive?
Who wants to live and work that way?
Please discuss this with us. We're used to it, and we have the solution. It's time to DO.
Make your first brave move and contact us.
Experiential Leader strives for excellence, which is why we survey our program performance in great detail through the NetPromoter method.
If you want to disrupt and transform how leaders are developed, send us a leader and their team.
We are leading science, and totally human.
Next time... your legacy.