After watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loQhufxiorM&feature=youtu.be, write a well-written reflection blog, discuss how your characteristics would have fit with the makeup and culture of the NeXT startup team. Your reflection should be very specific to the environment that you witness in the video. Make sure that you use your MA results as the basis for your discussion.
Damien Lloyd Payne in NeXT - not a chance! OK, bold statement, but I have the evidence to back this up. Not only overall am I at completely the other end of the spectrum - everything that annoys me would be contained in this startup. I'm going to be referring in this blog to a management assessment (MA that was done for me) the results of which I have posted below this blog for reference.
Lets start with the business environment that I am most suited too. For me it is at the complete other end of the spectrum than start-up companies. I much prefer to be in a large, rapid growth company. While I am pretty self confident and also self assertive, I do not exhibit the traits that signify Independence - in fact I look for structure much more than is required at a startup.
The second biggest know of the MA report is contained in the innovation characteristics. I am absolutely not driven to invent any new product at all - in fact nothing could turn me off more in a company. I may well be excited about selling such a new product or promoting it, but there is no way I would want to try to invent the next computer like the NeXt team is trying to do. Although I am highly motivated to be creative and to solve problems - these are not problems of invention that interest me, but perhaps the post-production problems that may arise after. My sales and marketing background would help me there, and is what has shaped this aversion to the new invention process.
There is a third reason that NeXt would not be a good fit for me, and that revolves around risk. Startups are by their very nature risky. With hindsight, you can see how NeXT did not become the huge computing giant that many of those present in the video hoped it would be. In fact, contrary to this belief, NeXT began to focus on the software capabilities rather than the hardware side the initial focus for success was on. For me, my MA shows that I am certainly willing to take risks in business decisions and have a history of doing so - but I have a very low tolerance for personal risk. Steve Jobs in the video took personal risk by sinking his own money into the company - I am sure other there may have done the same - perhaps by taking little pay or by working longer hours than one would in a normal job. Being a pilot, I'm risk adverse on the personal side. In fact, the nature of my job means that I have to do everything I can to minimize risk to those people on board - and there is nobody on my helicopter more important than me (even though the passengers think I cancel flights for their safety!). Because of the risk of the startup failure, and being out of work - a startup could not be for me.
So that pretty sums up why me and NeXt would not be that good for each other. But there are some positives that a company like NeXt could get from me. The MA states: "Candidate’s Role Model Characteristic shows that they strongly desire to act, or be seen, as a role model and it may lead to decisions that fulfill this need." Role models are important in a startup - and this may explain some of the success that good leaders have with this type of company - their desire to be a role model for those working for and with them. Steve Jobs was probably just this sort of person - someone that others wanted to follow and to emulate. In addition "Candidate's Data & Perfection Characteristic reflects a tendency to prefer gathering significant quantities of data, and driving for perfection" is another characteristic that Steve Jobs may wish to employ. A perfectionist himself, some people point to the NeXT failure in part due to the building of the computer around a perfectionist vision, rather than what was feasible in a $3500 selling range.
Lastly, "Candidate's Business Financial Metric Usage Characteristic suggests that they may not regularly use financial metrics as validation of the venture’s success. Inconsistent or infrequent usage of such measures may adversely affect the organization." This may well be a characteristic of Steve Jobs himself, who spent we are told in the video, over $100,000 on just a logo. as well as bleeding money through a thousand departmental overspends. Not sure if this trait is a helpful one, but may be something that Steve may recognise in himself and relate to.
For now, I'm satisfied at having missed out on the NeXT startup - and all other startups in the future - as the say in England "It's just not my cup of tea".
December 19, 2013
December 10, 2013
A631.8.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Develop a reflection blog describing how the MBTI might be useful to you as you develop your leadership capacity. In your blog, touch on your own self-awareness and also your knowledge and awareness of others.
So my personality type is a INTJ, which for those of you not in the know stands for Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Judging. At first glance, the word Introvert did not sit right. In social situations, you wouldn't describe me as being introverted at all. In fact quite the opposite. More in depth exploration of this Myers-Brigg personality Type was needed. What I found most fascinating, was that overall they had me pretty much pegged. I know what I know, and more importantly, I know what I don't know. I am the type of person that likes to get things done, and sometimes I pretend to follow the way things have always been done, but do things differently to get the right results. The MTBI test certainly has me placed as management material - sort of gratifying there at least.
Some further research indicated that perhaps the most fundamental problem with INTJ's is that INTJs really want people to make sense. (which I do!) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonablness and directness. I personally can't stand it when I'm told something that doesn't make any sense, and hate it when people just can't be direct.
From a leadership stand point, I believe that the MBTI allow us to see where we stand or at least get a better idea of some of our personality traits. In one of the videos that I had an opportunity to watch for our team assignment this week, it focused on realizing traits that we don't normally recognize. That video got me thinking about things that I might do without consciously thinking about doing them. MBTI is a great tool for this purpose. I think it is very important to understand and become self-aware of certain traits, assumptions, etc. that each of us have. As a leader, it's important to help other to realize and become self-aware too. MBTI helps us to realize traits about ourselves that we may not typically know or understand about ourselves. Therefore, knowing this will benefit me in my future leading endeavors. When you are sharing the same perspective to help someone to become a more effective leader you’ve got to come from an element of care and authenticity, so that what you are trying to do is in the best interests of helping them increase their own leadership effectiveness.
I find the MBTI test to be an interesting activity and one that enables a healthy self-reflection exercise to take place. I have been working more on the idea of being a "balanced" leader and to practice areas where I am more in a "distinct preference" mode in order to become more "moderate"....and this has the advantage of becoming a more amiable personality, to relate better to a wider spectrum of other's personalities, and to maintain the ability to reach for and utilize the mindset behind "distinct" preferences if they serve a present need. The cornerstone concept for leadership studies are effective leadership attributes and leadership skills - both of which can be learned. So naturally, we need to learn them, practice them, and own them.
Practice is the "growth" mode of development for an aspiring leader. Only through mindful practice can new behaviors be reinforced, new thought circuitry be developed and stabilized, and new interpersonal skills be explored and polished. Creating and developing a plan of action, however, requires some form of metric/measurement in order to be successful. The MBTI seems to fit this bill. Using these ideas and taking pains to observe and draw upon reliable and insightful feedback is perhaps a leadership behavior that needs to be installed and practiced at an early stage....listening, noting, and plugging in feedback into the "leadership learning process" is of vital importance. Although they say that great leaders are born, I'm not sure that they didn't learn a thing or two first and along the way too.
So my personality type is a INTJ, which for those of you not in the know stands for Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking and Judging. At first glance, the word Introvert did not sit right. In social situations, you wouldn't describe me as being introverted at all. In fact quite the opposite. More in depth exploration of this Myers-Brigg personality Type was needed. What I found most fascinating, was that overall they had me pretty much pegged. I know what I know, and more importantly, I know what I don't know. I am the type of person that likes to get things done, and sometimes I pretend to follow the way things have always been done, but do things differently to get the right results. The MTBI test certainly has me placed as management material - sort of gratifying there at least.
Some further research indicated that perhaps the most fundamental problem with INTJ's is that INTJs really want people to make sense. (which I do!) This sometimes results in a peculiar naivete', only instead of expecting inexhaustible affection and empathy from a romantic relationship, the INTJ will expect inexhaustible reasonablness and directness. I personally can't stand it when I'm told something that doesn't make any sense, and hate it when people just can't be direct.
From a leadership stand point, I believe that the MBTI allow us to see where we stand or at least get a better idea of some of our personality traits. In one of the videos that I had an opportunity to watch for our team assignment this week, it focused on realizing traits that we don't normally recognize. That video got me thinking about things that I might do without consciously thinking about doing them. MBTI is a great tool for this purpose. I think it is very important to understand and become self-aware of certain traits, assumptions, etc. that each of us have. As a leader, it's important to help other to realize and become self-aware too. MBTI helps us to realize traits about ourselves that we may not typically know or understand about ourselves. Therefore, knowing this will benefit me in my future leading endeavors. When you are sharing the same perspective to help someone to become a more effective leader you’ve got to come from an element of care and authenticity, so that what you are trying to do is in the best interests of helping them increase their own leadership effectiveness.
I find the MBTI test to be an interesting activity and one that enables a healthy self-reflection exercise to take place. I have been working more on the idea of being a "balanced" leader and to practice areas where I am more in a "distinct preference" mode in order to become more "moderate"....and this has the advantage of becoming a more amiable personality, to relate better to a wider spectrum of other's personalities, and to maintain the ability to reach for and utilize the mindset behind "distinct" preferences if they serve a present need. The cornerstone concept for leadership studies are effective leadership attributes and leadership skills - both of which can be learned. So naturally, we need to learn them, practice them, and own them.
Practice is the "growth" mode of development for an aspiring leader. Only through mindful practice can new behaviors be reinforced, new thought circuitry be developed and stabilized, and new interpersonal skills be explored and polished. Creating and developing a plan of action, however, requires some form of metric/measurement in order to be successful. The MBTI seems to fit this bill. Using these ideas and taking pains to observe and draw upon reliable and insightful feedback is perhaps a leadership behavior that needs to be installed and practiced at an early stage....listening, noting, and plugging in feedback into the "leadership learning process" is of vital importance. Although they say that great leaders are born, I'm not sure that they didn't learn a thing or two first and along the way too.
December 5, 2013
A631.7.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Together, MSLD 630 and MSLD 631 provide an overview of Organizational Development (OD). The courses present an OD view of managing change and organizational transformation. In this final chapter of your textbook, Brown presents two opposing ideas: OD is viewed by some as a rapidly changing field keeping up with the times and by others as a fad that will become irrelevant. Given what you have learned over the past two courses, what do you see as the future of the OD discipline?
When my Grandfather was young, the idea that a man could stand on the moon was just a dream, and actually, not really thought of as possible. Today, my children have no idea how to use the rotary phone I grew up with, and we have more computing power in our house than the entire Apollo space missions put together. When people ask what the future will be - weather that future is about a race to the moon or the future of an OD discipline it is always very hard to predict.
First we can answer the question as to weather OD will have any relevancy in the future - and the answer I believe is yes it will. I believe the form it takes may change - it may even be barely recognisable as the OD we have learnt about in these two courses, nevertheless, it will still be OD. I say this quite confidently because there is always going to be a need for not only change, but also reinvention. So OD will change with that in one form or another, trying hard to keep up.
I think more important, is the question of what OD will change into. To answer this question is pretty impossible, yet some educated guesses may be able to shed some light on the future. I believe that the future of organizations themselves are doomed. Not that we won't have an organization per say - just not one in the traditional sense that we think of one. We are forever moving towards flatter organizations to survive - corporations look to reduce overhead where possible by downsizing corporate headquarters, allowing more work from home (unless you are Yahoo), embracing communication technology and "Go To Meeting" applications that provide video conferencing.and the future of manufacturing for the masses starts to dim as 3D printing becomes ever quicker towards the home market. Each of us now cherish our smart phones where less than 5 years ago a razor flip phone was the latest and greatest. Smart phones now allow complete connectivity with desktops, work, home and through social media - the world.
I foresee a future where people manufacture their own products, merely buying designs straight from the web. I believe the world of delivery will change as technology increases which will eventually lay waste to the now traditional online mega stores like Amazon. High street stores will be gone because same day delivery will be standard fare for online consumers. I believe that we will all be working from home or a space in our own town, no matter how rural and this will all require a much different form of OD for companies.
I am pretty sure that companies will have to make a sea change very quickly, much more quickly than they would like. Competition from individuals will be the next biggest hurdle for large organizations to overcome, as the world of technology makes it as easy for me to earn a living on my own as it is right now to be employed.
So in a sense, OD as we know it today may well look like a fad that fades away in the same way that the craze for open floor office planning and management by walk-around so popular in the 1980's. I don't think OD is as clear cut as when Charlie Chaplin said “Movies are a fad. Audiences really
want to see live actors on a stage” or when the President of the Michigan Savings Bank stated “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad.” OD will still exist, the content may change some. In fact, it may be unrecognizable and it may be called something different. But the very definition of OD is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and/or efficiency. What I think is the future means that organizations will effectively have plan themselves into extinction to become the most effective and efficient organization.
What investors, customers, suppliers and employees want from organizations is clarity around what they see as the future markets and competition. They want to know how the company is going to be successful in 2 or 5 years. In today’s rapidly shifting, global markets it is not enough to talk about historical results, and to exhibit confidence that what brought the company to this point will propel it forward successfully (see Microsoft). And everyone recognizes that managing quarter to quarter will not create long term success.
Organizations and their leaders must demonstrate a keen eye for market shifts, and invest in opportunities to participate in game changers. Leaders must recognize trends, be clear about how those trends are shaping future markets and competitors, and align the organization with those trends. Leadership is not about what the company did before, but is entirely about what their organization is going to do next. And that to some companies is too scary a thought to process, as they struggle with working out what is going on today - which is why the enlightenment from OD may prove a least a little helpful in the future. Considering the past pace of advances, even guessing at the future of OD may prove to be futile.
When my Grandfather was young, the idea that a man could stand on the moon was just a dream, and actually, not really thought of as possible. Today, my children have no idea how to use the rotary phone I grew up with, and we have more computing power in our house than the entire Apollo space missions put together. When people ask what the future will be - weather that future is about a race to the moon or the future of an OD discipline it is always very hard to predict.
First we can answer the question as to weather OD will have any relevancy in the future - and the answer I believe is yes it will. I believe the form it takes may change - it may even be barely recognisable as the OD we have learnt about in these two courses, nevertheless, it will still be OD. I say this quite confidently because there is always going to be a need for not only change, but also reinvention. So OD will change with that in one form or another, trying hard to keep up.
I think more important, is the question of what OD will change into. To answer this question is pretty impossible, yet some educated guesses may be able to shed some light on the future. I believe that the future of organizations themselves are doomed. Not that we won't have an organization per say - just not one in the traditional sense that we think of one. We are forever moving towards flatter organizations to survive - corporations look to reduce overhead where possible by downsizing corporate headquarters, allowing more work from home (unless you are Yahoo), embracing communication technology and "Go To Meeting" applications that provide video conferencing.and the future of manufacturing for the masses starts to dim as 3D printing becomes ever quicker towards the home market. Each of us now cherish our smart phones where less than 5 years ago a razor flip phone was the latest and greatest. Smart phones now allow complete connectivity with desktops, work, home and through social media - the world.
I foresee a future where people manufacture their own products, merely buying designs straight from the web. I believe the world of delivery will change as technology increases which will eventually lay waste to the now traditional online mega stores like Amazon. High street stores will be gone because same day delivery will be standard fare for online consumers. I believe that we will all be working from home or a space in our own town, no matter how rural and this will all require a much different form of OD for companies.
I am pretty sure that companies will have to make a sea change very quickly, much more quickly than they would like. Competition from individuals will be the next biggest hurdle for large organizations to overcome, as the world of technology makes it as easy for me to earn a living on my own as it is right now to be employed.
So in a sense, OD as we know it today may well look like a fad that fades away in the same way that the craze for open floor office planning and management by walk-around so popular in the 1980's. I don't think OD is as clear cut as when Charlie Chaplin said “Movies are a fad. Audiences really
want to see live actors on a stage” or when the President of the Michigan Savings Bank stated “The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad.” OD will still exist, the content may change some. In fact, it may be unrecognizable and it may be called something different. But the very definition of OD is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and/or efficiency. What I think is the future means that organizations will effectively have plan themselves into extinction to become the most effective and efficient organization.
What investors, customers, suppliers and employees want from organizations is clarity around what they see as the future markets and competition. They want to know how the company is going to be successful in 2 or 5 years. In today’s rapidly shifting, global markets it is not enough to talk about historical results, and to exhibit confidence that what brought the company to this point will propel it forward successfully (see Microsoft). And everyone recognizes that managing quarter to quarter will not create long term success.
Organizations and their leaders must demonstrate a keen eye for market shifts, and invest in opportunities to participate in game changers. Leaders must recognize trends, be clear about how those trends are shaping future markets and competitors, and align the organization with those trends. Leadership is not about what the company did before, but is entirely about what their organization is going to do next. And that to some companies is too scary a thought to process, as they struggle with working out what is going on today - which is why the enlightenment from OD may prove a least a little helpful in the future. Considering the past pace of advances, even guessing at the future of OD may prove to be futile.
December 1, 2013
A631.6.4.RB_LloydPayneDamienh
Watch these videos:
http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal.html
http://www.vitalsmarts.com/casestudies/gallery-furniture/
Both of these videos highlight leadership in times of transformational change. How do you relate and make sense of the approaches taken by Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal compared to the information presented in your textbook? Use Figure 15.4 Relative Strength of Corporate Cultures and Figure 15.5 The Strategy-Culture Matrix in your response.
Have you ever bought furniture in another country - or better still a car? When I first came to America - with a pretty good background in Sales, I was appalled the first time I walked into a car showroom. I went there truly believing that the stereotypical salesman was dead, and yet I found him; he resides in car showrooms and furniture galleries across America.
Buying a car isn't a pleasure, nor is it simple. It's painful, dreadful and certainly made harder than it should be. How is it I can go into my nearest store and without any hassle, choose between brands at advertised prices right there on the shelf, and then buy those goods without any negotiation, or hassle. But when I go to do the same with a car I cannot?
First, the sofa or the car invariably will cost me as much as I can afford. Apparently the car costs more if my credit score is low, and less if it is high. Sometimes I'll hear phrases like "let's find the sofa you like and then we talk about what we can do to get that into your house" or "let me talk to my manager and see if we can make a deal."
It's all very strange, because in the UK, every car has a price on the windscreen. You can negotiate a little for fun if you like and maybe get a $1000 off to make you feel like you've got a deal, but essentially buying a car in the UK is much like buying candy at the local Target. What this means is that the "salesman" is now free to be a relationship builder; someone you like without pressuring you into buying something; someone you would recommend to a friend even if you didn't buy a car or a sofa from him yourself. And you are free to choose a car that is best for you, not one the car salesman needs off his lot. Is it any wonder that American cars were built for such a long period of time not keeping up with what customers wanted and led them to go bankrupt?
It seemed to me that sales in the US is far, far behind the rest of the world. (And don't get me started on banking). The greasy, slick and "I'm not able to make a deal without a managers approval" is live and kicking at literally every car showroom across the US - and it's like a disease. A disease that can't be cured until many of them die off and a cure is found amoung those that survive.
What gallery furniture discovered after 36 years of prosperity and little competition is that they didn't have relationships with customers - they had sales brought about by pressure or price - neither of which survive in a downturn. As a old bar owner once taught me at college - anyone can sell cheap beer, it's not the cheap beer that people keep coming back for, and those that do, are not the ones that you want anyway. What Gallery Furniture didn't have was a commitment to values - because there were none. This was evident in the fact that Jim McIngvale stated that they finally found an incentive system his own staff were unable to "game". Because there were no values, staff were not committed to them and this indicated a very weak culture.
As culture is what keeps a company breathing, it was no surprise that this company turned itself around into selling furniture in a new way. Gallery Furniture started building relationships. They started valuing their employees by training them and they started recognising them when they upheld a value - and it showed in their bottom line. I would be fascinated to go to a store of theirs and experience the new salesman there. I suspect it's nothing like the ones I find at my Ford Dealership.
What the General McChrystal ramblings talk towards is the strategy-culture mix. After 9-11 there was a real need to change the strategy in the way the free world fight wars, and to boot they had a new generation of fighters with no real connection to those who new the reasons for being there. Their commanders had witnessed the 9-11 aftermath, while those on the front line had "been in 6th grade". The leaders had less knowledge of new communication technologies, yet the participants were well used to video conferencing and receiving orders remotely. In order for General McChrystal to be effective as a leader he had to consider this new culture and understand the relationship between it and the new strategy he needed to adopt to win. The modern army fighting in Afghanistan was firmly in quadrant 1 of figure 15.5. Here, the leaders had to implement the strategy which was vital for success in the war, but reinforced that change through accepting the culture of the new modern army. When the general describes the Ranger Mantra that they recite every day, that is him accepting they have a culture, and he lead his teams bearing those facts in mind. He encouraged (as he had learnt from his old battalion commander who said he had done well after he had failed miserably on an exercise) his men and reinforced the values that they all upheld at 9-11. It was a difficult task, but one that allowed him to pursue the major changes.
I wonder what would have happened if the General had taken the same line with the troops as a car salesman does with me when I visit his showroom? I have to tell you, I would do anything today to avoid buying a car from a car salesman.
http://www.ted.com/talks/stanley_mcchrystal.html
http://www.vitalsmarts.com/casestudies/gallery-furniture/
Both of these videos highlight leadership in times of transformational change. How do you relate and make sense of the approaches taken by Jim "Mattress Mack" McIngvale and Stanley McChrystal compared to the information presented in your textbook? Use Figure 15.4 Relative Strength of Corporate Cultures and Figure 15.5 The Strategy-Culture Matrix in your response.
Have you ever bought furniture in another country - or better still a car? When I first came to America - with a pretty good background in Sales, I was appalled the first time I walked into a car showroom. I went there truly believing that the stereotypical salesman was dead, and yet I found him; he resides in car showrooms and furniture galleries across America.
Buying a car isn't a pleasure, nor is it simple. It's painful, dreadful and certainly made harder than it should be. How is it I can go into my nearest store and without any hassle, choose between brands at advertised prices right there on the shelf, and then buy those goods without any negotiation, or hassle. But when I go to do the same with a car I cannot?
First, the sofa or the car invariably will cost me as much as I can afford. Apparently the car costs more if my credit score is low, and less if it is high. Sometimes I'll hear phrases like "let's find the sofa you like and then we talk about what we can do to get that into your house" or "let me talk to my manager and see if we can make a deal."
It's all very strange, because in the UK, every car has a price on the windscreen. You can negotiate a little for fun if you like and maybe get a $1000 off to make you feel like you've got a deal, but essentially buying a car in the UK is much like buying candy at the local Target. What this means is that the "salesman" is now free to be a relationship builder; someone you like without pressuring you into buying something; someone you would recommend to a friend even if you didn't buy a car or a sofa from him yourself. And you are free to choose a car that is best for you, not one the car salesman needs off his lot. Is it any wonder that American cars were built for such a long period of time not keeping up with what customers wanted and led them to go bankrupt?
It seemed to me that sales in the US is far, far behind the rest of the world. (And don't get me started on banking). The greasy, slick and "I'm not able to make a deal without a managers approval" is live and kicking at literally every car showroom across the US - and it's like a disease. A disease that can't be cured until many of them die off and a cure is found amoung those that survive.
What gallery furniture discovered after 36 years of prosperity and little competition is that they didn't have relationships with customers - they had sales brought about by pressure or price - neither of which survive in a downturn. As a old bar owner once taught me at college - anyone can sell cheap beer, it's not the cheap beer that people keep coming back for, and those that do, are not the ones that you want anyway. What Gallery Furniture didn't have was a commitment to values - because there were none. This was evident in the fact that Jim McIngvale stated that they finally found an incentive system his own staff were unable to "game". Because there were no values, staff were not committed to them and this indicated a very weak culture.
As culture is what keeps a company breathing, it was no surprise that this company turned itself around into selling furniture in a new way. Gallery Furniture started building relationships. They started valuing their employees by training them and they started recognising them when they upheld a value - and it showed in their bottom line. I would be fascinated to go to a store of theirs and experience the new salesman there. I suspect it's nothing like the ones I find at my Ford Dealership.
What the General McChrystal ramblings talk towards is the strategy-culture mix. After 9-11 there was a real need to change the strategy in the way the free world fight wars, and to boot they had a new generation of fighters with no real connection to those who new the reasons for being there. Their commanders had witnessed the 9-11 aftermath, while those on the front line had "been in 6th grade". The leaders had less knowledge of new communication technologies, yet the participants were well used to video conferencing and receiving orders remotely. In order for General McChrystal to be effective as a leader he had to consider this new culture and understand the relationship between it and the new strategy he needed to adopt to win. The modern army fighting in Afghanistan was firmly in quadrant 1 of figure 15.5. Here, the leaders had to implement the strategy which was vital for success in the war, but reinforced that change through accepting the culture of the new modern army. When the general describes the Ranger Mantra that they recite every day, that is him accepting they have a culture, and he lead his teams bearing those facts in mind. He encouraged (as he had learnt from his old battalion commander who said he had done well after he had failed miserably on an exercise) his men and reinforced the values that they all upheld at 9-11. It was a difficult task, but one that allowed him to pursue the major changes.
I wonder what would have happened if the General had taken the same line with the troops as a car salesman does with me when I visit his showroom? I have to tell you, I would do anything today to avoid buying a car from a car salesman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)