Tag Archives: leadership observations

Leadership Lessons from Microsoft and Xbox Live

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine you are an executive of a large corporation that competes in a number of verticals and enjoys a monopoly or near monopoly in many of these. Your company generally produces great products that meet the needs of many consumers. In some verticals your products are even considered best in class. While some people may fear your monopoly power, others are grateful for the fine products you provide.

If this were the case, you would likely be on top of the world. In fact, your company would probably be in such great shape financially that your great products would beget great customer service that would beget huge barriers to entry (even if someone built a better or comparable mousetrap).

Now, imagine that even though you produce some great products, your company is generally hated and mistrusted by consumers; and that most consumers feel like your company is just a necessary evil, and that they would gladly drop you as soon as they are provided with a suitable alternative. How would you feel coming to work every day? Would you be okay earning a living in this environment? Would you even care what your customers thought so long as they remained customers? Would you do anything to change customer perceptions?

True leaders – those who come to work with a sense of humility, a desire to serve and an abundance mentality – would work diligently to change not only customer perceptions, but also the corporate realities that created those perceptions. It appears that there are no true leaders at Microsoft. (Or, at the very least, none that have had a positive impact on Microsoft’s reputation among the consuming public.)

Pigs Get Fed, but Hogs Get Slaughtered

There is a saying in business that pigs get fed, but hogs get slaughtered. The idea is that it’s okay to step up to the trough and eat – it’s even okay to get fat doing so – but when you take far more than your share – when you are perceived as someone who constantly takes and never gives – you become a hog and you will be slaughtered. Microsoft is a hog.

Microsoft operates an online gaming platform known as Xbox Live. Two of my sons subscribe to this platform as Gold Members, and one of them is set to renew his annual Gold Membership next month. This annual renewal generally runs just over $50 and is a relatively good value if use the service as much as he uses it. In fact, he uses the service so much that he sometimes receives Xbox gift cards for his birthday or at Christmas. These gift cards might be for points to use in Xbox Live or even an actual subscription for an Xbox Live Gold Membership.

We recently received a notice from Microsoft that his Xbox Live membership was set to expire next month and that his account (which I created and maintain for him because of his age) was set to auto renew the Live membership for $59. Let’s be perfectly clear here: I never authorized Microsoft to auto renew anything. I make it a habit to never set anything to automatically renew because of the hassle getting my money back when some subscription inadvertently renews automatically.

Time to “Uncheck” the Auto Renew Box

I assumed Microsoft was up to some shenanigans here, so I decided to log into my son’s account and deselect the auto renew setting on his Live membership. (In this instance, my son has a couple of 12-month Gold Membership cards that he can apply to his account, so there is no need for an auto renewal. However, I would have deselected this anyway to avoid hassles when those expired.)

To make a very long story somewhat short, it seems Microsoft (in all their technical expertise) cannot create a button on their website that allows someone to cancel the auto renew feature online. You must call Xbox Support (yes, physical make a telephone call) in order to do so.

I want to let that sink in.

In 2011, one of the most technologically advanced companies in the world cannot program their website to allow someone to deselect an auto-renewal setting for an online service.

Before you decide that I am an idiot for believing that this is a technology issue, let me say that the first of two Microsoft reps who had to help me turn off the automatic renewal told me that Microsoft “… used to allow people to cancel the auto renew online, but that it created issues and that it was easier for most people to just call in …”

I want to let that sink in.

Microsoft requires that you log into your Xbox account to get the link that leads you to the page that tells you to call their support team to cancel this feature, but they say it is easier for me to cancel this feature via phone. Stop peeing on me and telling me it’s raining.

The phone call to cancel this service took more than sixteen minutes and required that I provide the same secret account information twice (I was told this was for my own security “… to ensure your account is not being accessed fraudulently …”).

I want to let that sink in.

I can order anything I want from Xbox online in less than 30 seconds, but in order to cancel something, I need to jump through hoops on the phone with two representatives and provide answers to secret questions twice. I feel very protected. God forbid some hacker cancel a service and save me money.

How do Others Feel about this?

Not surprisingly, people absolutely hate Microsoft over this very issue. In reactions ranging from expletive-laden tirades on Xbox message boards to thoughtful videos intended to warn the public or alert the executives at Microsoft that something is amiss, there are literally thousands upon thousands of frustrated customers (like me) who understand when a company is stepping up to the trough way too many times.

Microsoft is not the first or the last company that will make it hard for their customers to cancel a service, but there is a particular “fuck you Mr. Customer” feeling about this move that leaves a very, very bad taste in a consumer’s mouth.

I cannot understand how this is a good move for Microsoft. Does this required phone call discourage enough people from removing the auto renewal feature that it is a net win for Microsoft? If that is the case, then Microsoft is taking advantage of consumers, in my opinion. What goes through the mind of someone who sets up or supports a policy like this? There is an inherent evil in this thinking that reminds me in a very small way of the Enron traders who made money by screwing the State of California.

It’s in the Math, Microsoft

I know the folks at Microsoft are smart, but I cannot believe the math even works in their favor on this one. Given the anger so many consumers show over this ill-conceived policy, I cannot imagine that Microsoft makes up for the potential lost revenue with incremental renewals. Additionally, in my case they had to pay two people (both I assumed were Americans by their accents and clear grasp of the English language) to assist me in cancelling the default auto renewal for this service.

Of course, even if the math works out in Microsoft’s favor in the short run, over the long run (where most leaders should have their greatest focus) there is no way the sheer hatred generated by this policy is a long-term win for the company.

(A small personal example of this: I am a fairly heavy user of search engine services and generally split my searches between Google and Microsoft’s Bing; with Google getting about 75% of my searches and Bing getting the rest. Because of the business I am in, I also happen to be someone who tends to click more on sponsored search results than most. In fact, I estimate that I view sponsored results an average of 50+ times per week. Just moving to Google for all of my searches will cost Microsoft over $300 per year in lost revenue from my clicks. Of course, this is too small to even be chump change to Microsoft, but this is just one Microsoft service I will eliminate. For all future home computer purchases, I will forego buying the latest version of Microsoft Office and opt for the comparable free alternatives available at OpenOffice.org. And so on, and so on…)

True Leaders Would Care

Microsoft’s executives – the guys and gals needing the leadership lessons – will never miss my revenue, of course. They will also likely never feel any sting from the lost revenue of the thousands or millions who will do as I do. They could, however, feel a slight pinch from any attorneys general who choose to sue them over this practice. (You see Microsoft: States take it very seriously when big companies try to scam their citizens. Just ask the 24 states who sued Time Magazine in 2006 for their auto-renewal policy; something the states considered a deceptive business practice.)

As I wrote earlier, true leaders – those who come to work with a sense of humility, a desire to serve and an abundance mentality – would work diligently to change not only customer perceptions, but also the corporate realities that created those perceptions. And true leaders would not need government action to do so… true leaders care enough to do what is right.

Besides the pigs and hogs saying, there is another saying I think is appropriate for Microsoft: The worst time to take advantage of someone is when you can. Microsoft should plaster their offices with signs reading exactly that; it just might make a few people hate them a little less.

 

Abusing One’s Leadership Role is Never a Good Thing

Posted on by
Reply

Leadership Lessons from Cash for Clunkers

 

Without diving too deeply into a mini controversy from last week, let me just enlighten you with some quick facts:

  • Edmunds.com estimated that the recent Cash for Clunkers program cost US taxpayers about $24,000 per incremental vehicle sold;
  • The chief economist of the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) responded that the cost of each incremental vehicle sold was actually $4,587;
  • For both analyses, an incremental vehicle sold is a sale that would not otherwise have occurred without the government’s CARS program.

 

Whenever I am faced with two strikingly different opinions about something, I like to follow the money. In other words: Whose opinion enriches their goals more?

 

A few more quick facts:

  • Edmunds, a privately-owned company that has been providing mostly accurate analysis of the automotive industry for more than 43 years, reported their findings days before the NADA reported theirs;
  • The White House blasted Edmunds.com, because Edmunds.com disagreed with the official government assessment of the program and painted the program as costly;
  • NADA, the main lobbying arm for new car dealers in the US, agreed with the official government assessment and even went so far as to call Edmunds’ analysis “fundamentally flawed.”

 

Hmmm, lobbyists who call on the White House and other government officials to curry favor for their car dealer clients agree with the White House and blast an independent company who disagrees with them?

 

Follow the Money

 

More than just politics as usual, it’s actually quite disappointing that the NADA would, in our opinion, sell its integrity for the sake of a program that even the NADA’s dealer-members will admit (privately) did little to move incremental units over the long term.

 

In fact, dealers we’ve surveyed point out that their website traffic – which they tell us is a great indicator of consumer interest in new cars – dropped more than 30% in September and October versus the same period in 2008. (For a point-of-reference: Clunker sales ended in August.) To these dealers, this means that the CARS program “pulled ahead” units from September and beyond into July and August.

 

The NADA’s assessment of the program assumes no sales were pulled ahead. Not one. Zero. None. Nada (pun intended).

 

In their chief economist’s view, the NADA claims that auto sales for July and August would have been around 1,600,000 units without Clunkers. Actual sales for those two months totaled 2,253,963 units, leaving a difference of 653,963 units. (So far we agree with the NADA.) Divide the CARS’ $3 billion cost to taxpayers by 653,963 and you get $4,587 per car. Simple, right?

 

Stop Peeing on Me and Telling Me it’s Raining

 

There cannot be anyone with even basic macroeconomic training who buys into this simpleton analysis. As any good economist would tell you, programs like Cash for Clunkers do not operate in a vacuum. There are economic truths at work that dictate you cannot inject a significant variable (in this case the taxpayers’ $3,500 – $4,500 per car) that significantly drives up current demand for a capital good and not have some impact on future demand for that good.

 

Are we to believe that not one of the six hundred fifty-three thousand, nine hundred sixty-three incremental units sold in July and August would ever have been sold if not for the CARS program? Well, that’s exactly what the NADA is saying with their transparently disappointing attempt at influencing the White House, the congress and taxpayers who might be asked to support another Clunkers program in 2010.

 

While the Edmunds.com analysis may have overestimated the number of vehicles pulled ahead into July and August, at least they didn’t try to tell us that EVERY incremental vehicle sold over those two months was pulled ahead from a future month.

 

Abusing One’s Leadership Role is Never a Good Thing

 

This is why integrity in leadership is critical. How can we believe anything the NADA reports after this? Their objectivity, in our opinion, is nonexistent. They seem as comical as the NRA arguing for bazookas in every home or PETA rallying against fat people. They’ve quickly gone from being a respectable business organization to becoming just another special interest group. They are now a caricature of their former self.

 

They’ve forgotten that unlike true special interest groups, the NADA held a true leadership role in the automotive community. They served the best short- and long-term interests of their dealer-members. Now, they’ve broken the trust of anyone with a brain, causing us to question the veracity of all future pronouncements.

 

The leadership lesson here is simple: When given a position of leadership – whether you’re the President of the United States or the chief economist for a lobbying organization – you have a duty to lead with integrity. Abusing the trust granted to you on the basis of your position assures that you will not be trusted in the future. Your subordinates, constituents or members are not dumb, and when they know you’ve stretched the truth to fit your agenda in the past, they will begin to question the motives of your future actions, and they will no longer take you at your word.

From GoGo to NoGo, Delta Stubs Their ToeToe

Posted on by
Reply

Delta Renames In-Flight Wireless Internet

Dubbed GoGo when released (see our original excited post about GoGo Wi-Fi published on January 12, 2009), it is rumored that Delta has decided to rename their in-flight wireless Internet service NoGo to signify that the service is still not available on all flights nearly nine months since its release. More importantly, GoGo is surprisingly absent from many cross-country flights (where travelers would most welcome it). “It has become clear to us that we should rename the service NoGo,” stated a fictitious Delta executive.

Okay, so this is a rumor that I’m starting, but for good reason. Today I sit on a four-hour, thirteen-minute flight from Atlanta to Orange County on a Delta 737. Once we reached 10,000 feet, I was excited to remove my laptop from its bag, power up and surf to my heart’s content.

Oops, someone forgot to install GoGo on this flight.

Makes perfect sense, right? Why would a planeload of businessmen want to check email during a cross-country flight in the middle of a weekday? My last three flights, all less than 40 minutes in total EDUT (Electronic Device Usage Time), came equipped with GoGo wireless. At just under $10 per flight, GoGo is often not worth purchasing on such short hops. On a flight like today’s, GoGo would be a welcomed bargain that would also help Delta squeeze some additional revenue from its customers.

Leaders Remember Important Lessons

I admit it: I’ve forgotten most of what I learned in college. Much of what I do remember, I have to say, I will never, ever use. I’m hopeful, of course, that I can recall the important lessons when required. The lack of GoGo Wi-Fi on today’s long flight reminds me of one of the first lessons I learned during a basic marketing course in my freshman year in college; perhaps you recall this lesson, as well: it was called The Four Ps of Marketing.

Price, Promotion, Product, Place

With regards to the GoGo rollout, Delta has done a done a decent job with three of the Ps, but they forgot all about one of them.

Price. At $9.95, the service is priced particularly well. A dollar more and they would likely lose 20-30% of their users, a dollar less and they gain nothing.

Promotion. Between the early 40% discounts and the constant bombardment of seat pocket flyers and preflight announcements I have become nearly addicted to the service.

Product. I can surf the web at 30,000 feet. ‘nuf said.

Place. Oops… it’s clear Delta didn’t think this one through. To provide the service during a quick jaunt between ATL and JAX is meaningless to consumers (and probably costly to Delta). However, to not provide the service between Atlanta and John Wayne International is downright criminal. What is Delta thinking? Obviously (as is becoming commonplace with Delta product/process rollouts) they were not.

Like the on-again/off-again Breezeway rules, Delta leadership doesn’t seem to grasp simple concepts. Is it because running an airline is so complicated? I have no doubt it’s damn tough to achieve much of what Delta has achieved, though I find it incredibly disappointing when they fail at the simplest of tasks. (As a frequent Delta flyer, I’m just hopeful they don’t screw up like this on the important stuff.)

Stop Managing Activities and Start Seeing Results

Posted on by
1

Keep Everyone Busy So You Can Kill Creativity

In the current economic climate (one that we’ve dubbed The Great Necession), it seems that companies are so concerned about productivity that they’re forgetting about innovation and creativity.

Whether we’re all trying to cover our asses as managers or whether we truly believe that micromanagement and piling on the busy work is the key to survival during The Great Necession, we have become obsessed with ensuring everyone still employed is constantly busy.

Understandably, many workers are doing their job and that of their laid off former coworkers; though even this doesn’t explain what we’ve observed over the past several months in workplaces across America. Too often to be a coincidence, we’ve watched in disbelief as more and more managers unnecessarily micromanage the activities of their charges in an effort to magically drive more output.

We’ve become so concerned with keeping everyone busy that we don’t leave time for our employees to be creative or creatively solve problems.

Manage the Results, Not the Activities

Often because they don’t fully understand the goals, junior managers fall into the trap of managing or micromanaging the activities of their subordinates. When desperate, even seasoned leaders will sometimes scramble to drive productivity through the micromanagement of daily activities.

The Great Necession has created more than a little desperation in the workplace.

The key to reaching your team’s goals as leaders is to clearly identify the goals and then monitor and manage the output of those contributing to the achieving of these goals. When you try to manage the inputs (the activities) instead of the outputs (the results), you most often find you’re driving fast, though in the wrong direction. Additionally, you cannot hold your subordinates accountable for the results that the overly-managed activities attain.

When you tell someone not only what to do, but also how to do it, you own the results – good or bad.

We Need Creative Problem Solving to Solve Our Current Problems

Left to their own accord, people will always find ways to do it cheaper, faster, better and safer. If you’re micromanaging their activities, you leave them no time to improve your products or processes; and thus, no time to help pull your company through the tough times.

As leaders, it rests on us to guide our companies through this economy. Your people are counting on you to do just that. It’s time to lead again: Resist the temptation and stop managing the activities and just manage the results. It’s easier. Of course, do this only if you want creative solutions to your company’s problems.

The Truth about Cash for Clunkers

Posted on by
3

Leadership Decision Making and The Law of Unintended Consequences

Certainly you’ve heard the axioms “nothing happens in a vacuum” and “for every action there is a reaction” before. We’re pretty sure that every thinking adult not only understands these sayings, but also believes them to be true.

Cause and effect, means and ends, seed and fruit cannot be severed; for the effect already blooms in the cause, the end preexists in the means, the fruit in the seed – Ralph Waldo Emerson

RWE is correct, but he fails to mention that each cause actually has multiple effects; every mean leads to numerous ends; and that each seed can bear bushels of fruit. Cause and effect, like means and end, can imply both good and bad outcomes; and both scenarios – unlike the planting of a seed – often create results that are unintended and unforeseen.

The law of unintended consequences is not a new phenomenon, and it’s especially not new to government action. History has shown at every turn that government intervention, regardless of the benevolent intention, leads to numerous unforeseen and unintended consequences. Certainly, some of the outcomes are beneficial, though the vast majority are not.




The Truth about Cash for Clunkers and The Law of Unintended Consequences

In a nutshell, the US Government created a program that requires taxpayers to spend $3 billion help 750,000 people to buy a new car. The program, officially the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) though more commonly known as Cash for Clunkers, was created solely “to energize the economy; boost auto sales and put safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation’s roadways” – this, according to the government’s official cars.gov website.

While nearly everyone in Washington was breaking their arms patting themselves on their collective backs after just two weeks of CARS, the truth is that this program, like all government programs, has already spawned numerous unintended consequences (and none of them positive). Here are just a few:

  • Kelley Blue Book analysts are predicting a bubble in used car prices as a result of the CARS program. This means the cost for a used car is going to be higher, creating a burden on the working poor and lower middle class.
  • Charities are reporting that donations of used cars are down 20% since the start of the CARS program.
  • Already hurt by the economic downturn, used car lots are seeing an additional 20% drop in sales since the beginning of the program – these lots are more often owned by local businesspeople and not large corporations.
  • Some independent auto repair shops – precisely the kind that would service an older car – are reporting up to 25% decreases in their business.
  • Because of the increased demand for many models, car dealers are not discounting beyond the required manufacturer’s rebate. This means that all consumers are paying more for these models.
  • Economists blame the drop in overall July retail sales on the CARS program; arguing that consumers spent on new cars, but cut their spending elsewhere – deepening the recession the program was meant to help stop.
  • The top new model sold so far under the Cash for Clunkers program is an SUV – the Ford Escape – and two large trucks (Ford’s F-150 and Chevy’s Silverado) and a Jeep are among the Top 10 new models sold. (Hardly the pro-green movement for which the government was hoping.)
  • 750,000 working automobiles will be taken out of service and replaced with 750,000 new vehicles. The process of manufacturing each new car (when you account for the acquisition of all material required) is a much more polluting proposition than driving each old car until its natural demise.


It’s clear that Cash for Clunkers will do little, if anything, to stimulate the overall economy; but what about the nation’s car dealers and manufacturers? While dealers are making more per car sold and manufacturers are seeing their inventory backlogs shrink, both of these benefits will likely be short-lived.

The increased demand created by the CARS program cannot be sustained without better economic news. The dip in overall July retail sales signals to us that the end is not as near as we had all hoped. Instead of kick-starting the US Auto Industry, Cash for Clunkers likely pulled ahead many consumers who would have purchased later this year and in 2010. This means many dealers should look for softer than expected new car sales from September through the end of the year.

For the manufacturers, it seems they never learn. Ford announced this week that as a result of the “success” of the program they are ramping up production in the US. While this should be good news for the economy, it likely signals that Ford will be cutting production more than usual this November and December. Rather than enjoying the higher prices brought on by the momentary (and sure to be short-lived) spike in demand, Ford plans to run with the standard Detroit playbook and chase demand by building more cars, trucks and SUVs in the next couple of months. It’s as if Ford is proclaiming “Forecasters be damned, the recession is over.”

…

The leadership lesson in all of this is that the world is always more complex than it seems on the surface. Whether we’re talking about the US Economy or the five people in your workgroup, there is an equilibrium that must be considered before major changes are enacted. Understanding how these changes will affect all stakeholders is an important first step towards reaching your goals; but it is only a first step.

It is equally important to make assumptions about the unintended consequences that will inevitably define the success or failure of any major project, program or transformation. While you’ll be wrong more often than you’re right, just knowing that unforeseen outcomes are expected will make you a better leader – if for no other reason than you’ll be better prepared to manage the unanticipated results.

Cash 4 Clunkers Causes Conservatives 2 Clamber 4 Gov’ment Cheese

Posted on by
Reply

Cash 4 Clunkers Causes Conservatives 2 Clamber 4 Gov’ment Cheese

An interesting sociological experiment and a great leadership lesson has emerged from the US Government’s Cash For Clunkers program: We observed the previously fiscally-conservative put their hands way out, looking for their version of Government Cheese.




It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

We love using this quote by Upton Sinclair because it explains so much about how humans, even staunchly conservative ones, act when money is involved. We understand why so many car dealers are fiscally conservative: They want to keep their hard-earned money in their pockets and not in the government’s. We get it, and we agree with them. What’s interesting here, however, is the nation’s car dealers – mostly old, rich white guys – argue against virtually every welfare program and any government involvement in their businesses. But, when it’s their turn to suck from the government teat, they will knock you and me down to get theirs.

No one doubts that without the collective efforts of NADA member dealers …, the cash-for-clunkers program would not exist today. – National Automobile Dealers Association Chairman John McEleney

We certainly don’t doubt it. It seems that greed trumps principle. The same businessmen and women who routinely vote against liberal candidates were salivating last week while lobbying for President Obama and the Democratically-controlled Senate to pass legislation putting another two-billion tax dollars in their pockets. Do they have any sense of who will pay for this? Do they care?

WIIFM – What’s In It For Me?

Not that we expected the nation’s car dealers to react any differently than virtually anyone else would, we just thought it was interesting what strange bedfellows can be made when there’s something in it for someone. In a weird way we half expected that at least the conservative members of the NADA to remain so… Wow, are we naïve.

Leadership Lessons from the US Government and the Cash for Clunkers Program

Posted on by
1

Cash for Clunkers: What we can learn about Leadership from Bureaucrats?

Whether you agree or disagree that the US Government should be in the business of incentivizing the populace to buy new cars, the fact is that the so-called “cash for clunkers” program simply demonstrates that our government, like all governments, does not employ an overabundance of thoughtful leaders.

If the goal of the program, also known as the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), was to encourage the sale of 200,000 new vehicles, then it has been a smashing success. In fact, the one billion dollar program that was scheduled to run for the next three months ran out of money in less than a week. Oops.

“It has succeeded well beyond our expectations and all expectations,” commented President Barack Obama.

Thoughtful Leaders “Do the Math”

Just who in our government was setting these expectations? We all knew the program, which pays dealers up to $4,500 per vehicle to junk old cars traded in for new fuel-efficient cars, only had enough money for about 200,000 such transactions.

  • There are roughly 20,000 new car dealers in the US.
  • That equates to 10 clunker deals per dealer.
  • The average dealer can sell 10 cars in about 3 hours.

We’re actually surprised the program lasted as long as it did given that the demand for new cars in the US has been depressed for more than a year. One could argue that the US auto industry, which is currently selling about 500,000 fewer new cars each month that it did just two years ago, has more pent up demand than the housing market. Prior to the Cash for Clunkers program, you were more likely to catch the Swine Flu than you were to get New Car Fever.


Now, for the Real Ugly Truth about CARS

It’s clear we didn’t plan well enough for the execution phase of this program. Not only did the government drastically underestimate the potential acceptance of CARS, but they’ve been failing (unsurprisingly) to keep up with the very basics of their own program.

Just a couple of quick examples:

TheManager signed up weeks ago at the Cars.gov website to be alerted when there were updates to the program. By our tally there have been dozens of such updates, though we’ve received none of the promised email communications. No biggie, and certainly not surprising.

Now we learn that the website created by the feds to handle dealers’ claim submissions has taken up to an hour to process each transaction. Additionally, there are reports of repeated rejections as dealers spend countless hours submitting and resubmitting data. A little more of biggie, but again, not surprising.

So, who are we Entrusting with CARS?

Let’s not forget that this is program between the government (think: no accountability) and car dealers (think: Rudy Russo in Used Cars). You wouldn’t trust either of these groups to babysit your kids let alone run a now multi-billion dollar program designed to make the world more fuel-efficient. (Congress added $2 billion to the program today.)

Seriously, there are great people who work for the US Government and there are certainly great people who manage and own new car dealerships in America… there just aren’t enough of them in either profession.

The CARS program requires that the clunker “be crushed or shredded so that it will not be resold for use in the United States or elsewhere as an automobile. The entity crushing or shredding the vehicles in this manner will be allowed to sell some parts of the vehicle prior to crushing or shredding it, but these parts cannot include the engine or the drive train.”

Who will inspect this crushing and shredding? Who will ensure that none of these vehicles is resold inside or outside of the US? Who will ensure that no unscrupulous dealers submit false claims? If we are relying on the goodness of mankind to ensure everyone, including the government and car dealers, does the right thing then we are being more than a little naïve.

Thoughtful leaders, of course, take pride in not being naïve. The government could certainly use a few more thoughtful leaders.

Leadership Lessons from the NBA – When Bold Moves are Required, Leaders Don’t Care About Popularity

Posted on by
Reply

Leadership Lessons from the NBA – The Surprisingly Aware Richard Jefferson

Weeks after being acquired by the San Antonio Spurs, star NBA forward Richard Jefferson was scheduled to marry his redundantly named fiancé, Kesha Ni’Cole Nichols, last Saturday. As you’ve likely heard, Jefferson, late of the New Jersey Nets, got cold feet and called the wedding off just hours before he was scheduled to become Mr. Ni’Cole Nichols.




While most in the blogosphere have lined up to crucify Jefferson for his last minute email to Nichols calling off the nuptials, the editors of AskTheManager.com believe he showed great leadership in recognizing a bad decision and rectifying it before it was too late. (Of course, there are reports he spent more than $2 million on the wedding that never happened, so we’re not entirely sure he couldn’t have made the decision a few weeks earlier.)

Leaders Make Decisive Moves

While Jefferson spent more than $2 million on the ceremony, he likely saved himself millions more by avoiding the inevitable divorce from KNN. Many have called him a coward, though we call him bold.

A coward, you see, wouldn’t want to face his fiancé, her family, his family, their friends and the rest of the world with the embarrassing news that he made a bad decision in asking her to marry him. A coward, you see, would live with his bad decision and compound it with more and more bad decisions for the rest of his life. Leaders are bold enough and comfortable enough with their own abilities to say “I screwed up, and this is how I’m going to fix it.”

Leaders Do What’s Right

The popular move for Jefferson would have been to go through with the wedding and make the best of a bad marriage. Certainly millions of others before him have done just that. Jefferson, for whatever reason, stepped up and did what was right – that’s what leaders do. Leaders care about popularity only when it doesn’t get in the way of what is right, and marrying someone you just don’t love isn’t right.