So, what is leadership? That’s a big question. No, it’s a huge question. How about management – how does it differ? These are not questions I expect to fully answer here. What I am expecting to do is stir up some thinking.

And to start that thinking, here’s a couple of quotes:

Dwight Eisenhower once said, “Leadership: The art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.”

John Holt, the renowned educational reformer in his excellent book, Teach Your Own, said, “Leaders are not, as we are often led to think, people who go along with huge crowds following them. Leaders are people who go their own way without caring, or even looking to see, whether anyone is following them. ‘Leadership qualities’ are not the qualities that enable people to attract followers, but those that enable them to do without them. They include, at the very least, courage, endurance, patience, humor, flexibility, resourcefulness, stubbornness, a keen sense of reality, and the ability to keep a cool and clear head, even when things are going badly. True leaders, in short, do not make people into followers, but into other leaders.”

What is the difference between a leader and a manager? I have my own thoughts in this, but I really want yours. So I’m pleading for everyone reading this blog to post a comment below, answering the question of what the difference is between a leader and a manager. I know for a fact that the comments will mean a lot more than my opinion or any definition found in a business book or course.

Take a few minutes to click on the comment button below and write whatever you want about my question.

I then came across this:

“The Stanford Research Institute, Harvard University, and the Carnegie Foundation once spent over one million dollars and five years of research studying why some people succeed. After the study was concluded, it was determined that 15% of the reason a person is able to get a job, keep a job, and move ahead in that job, is determined by his or her technical skills and knowledge, regardless of the profession. The other 85% of the reason a person is able to get a job, keep that job, and move ahead in that job, is directly related to people skills. It soon becomes apparent that working with people and managing people, starting with ourselves, must be a high priority if we are going to be successful.”

If that’s the case, why is so much training devoted to technical skill-building, and so little to people skills?

Of course, this doesn’t just apply to training. Given the choice between developing a system or developing a relationship, perhaps it’s the latter one should focus on.

I’ve heard it said that ninety percent of success in business is due to good communication. I would bet it’s the thing that is on most people’s “least favorite things to deal with” list. That’s certainly my conclusion based on the number of issues, problems and challenges that I’ve seen that could be resolved with more effective communication… but isn’t.

What is communication? Would you agree that it seems many people think that the definition of communication is “talking”? But we all know communication is as much about listening as anything else.

I once had a coaching client who faced a situation where groups of people were not working well together. We discussed ways to make things better and came to the conclusion that more communication was needed, so I asked how she was going to deal with it. Her reply was, “I’m going to tell them what to do, how to behave, when to do it, everything. Obviously, they can’t figure it out.” When I then asked her whether telling people what to do was the only way of fixing a communication problem, she looked confused. After some coaching she went into a meeting with the two groups, described her expectations (collaborative work through lots of communication), and then asked them to come up with some ideas of how to improve things. She then sat back and simply facilitated the communication. The groups came up with a process, and things began working much better.

Business is all about the results, the bottom line, and yet it’s only through people that the results happen. It’s only through people that business happens.

For many years, all-season car tires were a perfect example of this: okay on dry pavement, okay in the rain, okay in snow, okay on ice; but not great at anything. They were a good compromise.

Some employees and teammates are like this. They’re good at many things, but not great at any one thing. Some would say that’s good, as a company and team needs people who just get things done.

But what if? What if a company had no employees who were just okay at things, but had an entire team of people who were specialists, who were superstars in their own area of expertise?

Some would say that’s utopian thinking and too idealistic. Is it? And even if it is a little idealistic, is it possible for a company to be made up of people who are great at what they do; people who are so confident and appreciated for what they contribute that they don’t bother trying to be more than what they are? In other words, they’re comfortable being the best at one simple thing. They have no need to try to impress others with all of things they know and can do. (This is a key point: Often, the reason people try to be good at everything is because they don’t receive enough recognition for what they’re really good at).

But, “What about sports teams made up of superstars, who under-perform as a team?”, you ask. All-star and some Olympic teams come to mind, right? I’m not suggesting that these superstars don’t need to work together as a team. In fact, as proven by some Olympic and All-star teams, teamwork is a must for peak performance. Lack of teamwork can rarely be made up for by a group of superstars.

The difference between the aforementioned superstar teams  and what I’m talking about is teamwork. Just because you have a group of superstars, doesn’t mean that they can’t work together as a team. In fact, if you have people who are great in their specific area, they complement each other, and build a stronger team (especially if each team member is appreciated and acknowledged for their contribution).

What often hurts teams is the lack of specialists. A team of good players, all trying to do a good job in the same area, will rarely be a strong team. And they’ll step on one another. Great teams have specialists in each critical area, and these specialists are comfortable knowing they’re doing their job, are respected and appreciated for it, and trust others on the team to do what they specialize in.

As Calvin Newport, author of How to Be a High School Superstar: A Revolutionary Plan to Get into College by Standing Out, says, “Being the best in a field makes you disproportionately impressive to the outside world. This effect holds even if the field is not crowded, competitive, or well-known… Employers don’t mind upsetting hard workers, but they fear losing stars.”

Focus on being the best in one area, being a specialist, being a superstar performer.

Improving performance may just be a matter of focusing more on what’s working, and less on what’s not working.

“Bright spots.” That’s what Chip and Dan Heath call them in their book, Switch. They write about the approach Save The Children used to help mothers in Vietnam provide better nutrition to their children by learning from the few that were doing it best, about a solutions-focused therapist helping “problem” kids in schools by helping them focus on what they did well, and about a company that focused on what was working in drug sales to help market their products.

Psychologist Martin Seligman calls the approach of focusing on what’s working with peak performers, rather than on what’s not working with people with problems, “Positive Psychology.” He’s written extensively about the topic in Learned Optimism, Authentic Happiness, and other books.

Shawn Achor talks about focusing on what makes people successful in his brief book, Bringing the Science of Positive Psychology to Life. Watch and listen to Achor talk about this in this fantastic video.

Marcus Buckingham recommends focusing on what’s working in his book, Now Discover Your Strengths when he says mangers should focus more on employees’ strengths than on fixing their weaknesses. And so should you, he says.

So, what do most business leaders, team leaders and coaches focus on? What’s not working. They focus on fixing the problems. They spend most of their time and effort working on the problems.

Would a person, a team, or a business be further ahead if they focused on replicating what was working, rather than on fixing the things that were not working? It seems obvious that if you or I simply did a lot more of what’s working, we may not even have time to do what needs fixing. We’ll be so busy doing all the right things that we won’t have time to do the wrong things.

If you want to help someone else, tell them what they’re doing right. Give them confirming feedback. People tend to do more of what they are rewarded for, so reward someone with feedback about what they’re doing well. They will do more of that.

Take a few minutes right now and make a list of all the things you’re doing right. Come on, do it. If you don’t write them down, this won’t really work, so go ahead and start making a list. And don’t be too modest, but be honest. Pretend you’re someone else, like your manager, your coach, or a friend, and ask yourself what you’re doing right. What would they say? Write it down.

Now, just do more of those things. This may be the simplest way to enhance your performance.

I’ve experienced this same thing in business. What seems like a minor issue, left alone and allowed to fester, turns into a big issue – things snowball out of control.

For example, every business has its values and cultures. Often, one person can have a big impact on a company’s culture… and that one person can often be the “little issue.” On its own, one person that doesn’t fit the company’s values and culture doesn’t seem to be a problem. On the surface, it’s not a problem. But over time, left unattended, this small issue will eat away at a company’s culture and values, until one day the leaders of the company step back and think, What happened?

That’s what happened in France, at Le Mans. The team owner thought that a “minor” mechanical issue would be okay without doing a fairly major repair. He felt that, left alone, it wouldn’t cause a problem. Instead, that minor issue led to a problem with another part in the car, which caused my co-driver to pull off the track, which caused the track safety crew to move the car, which lead to another problem… And it kept snowballing until we dropped out of the race.

Some people said we were unlucky. It had nothing to do with luck. It had to do with ignoring a small problem. In my experience, just about every example of bad luck can be traced back to a real cause. This was a good example of that. Or should I say, a bad example, because it should never have happened.

I’m not saying that every little issue needs to be made into a huge deal, but letting it go totally unattended could just be that cause of a major problem or issue in the near future.

Let’s use a company’s sales staff as an example. Put yourself in a sales manager’s shoes.

What motivates your sales staff? Is it money? Some will say all good sales people are motivated by money, and that’s why commission works. But does it? I’ve talked with some extremely successful sales people who say that once they have their basic needs covered, more money isn’t the motivation. It’s the challenge, the knowledge that they’re doing something special, that they’re contributing to something bigger than just them, that they’re connecting with people… that’s what motivates them. And that falls directly inline with what Daniel Pink wrote about in Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. He refers to what motivates today’s workforce as Motivation 3.0.

Instead of looking at your sales staff and pointing the finger at their lack of success, look in the mirror and ask, “Am I doing everything I can to make my sales people successful? Am I doing what’s necessary to motivate my staff?”

In a discussion about compensation plans, commissions, perks, bonuses, and all sorts of other incentives and so-called motivators, a manager I was talking to recently suggested a bonus of a trip to Hawaii for the leading sales person. I then asked, “Would that motivate all your staff?” He looked at me with a face that said, “Well, why not?”

What motivates you may not motivate your sales staff. For example, what if the leading sales person – the one that won the trip to Hawaii – hates to travel. In fact, she is terrified of flying. What if? So, while a trip to some exotic destination may be a motivator to you, it may not be to someone else. Personally, I find it hard to imagine someone not wanting to go to Hawaii, but it could happen. In fact, I’ve met people who think a trip like that would be painful.

How can you motivate someone if you don’t know what drives them? Using a blanket approach to this – using the same method to motivate all people – does not work.

The top three things that a great manager of people does is provide clear expectations, provide lots of feedback, and develops a personal connection with her people. As part of the latter, a great manager should learn about what motivates her staff.

If I walked up to you right now and asked, “What motivates each member of your staff?” how would you respond? Could you give me a solid answer?

This doesn’t apply just to people that report to you. It works for everyone whom you want to help perform better. It can apply to your boss, your co-workers, teammates, peers. Do you know what motivates your boss?

How do you determine what motivates someone? Well, you could ask them! As part of the process of developing a good working relationship, perhaps a discussion about what motivates you both is a great place to start. Understanding that what motivates you may not motivate me or anyone else, and then determining what does motivate people, will lead to better performance.

Within a week I had conversations with two different groups of people about how to increase sales. One was a company I’m doing some consulting for, and the other a group of business owners with whom I get together with (not often enough!) to share thoughts and ideas.

In looking at how to increase sales, both groups were focused on how to find and hire good sales people. We talked about all sorts of ways of identifying people who would be great sales people. We talked about using various personality instruments and tests to determine the traits that make a great sales person. We talked about recruiting techniques, about interviewing, about resumes. But in the end, both groups seemed to be resigned to not being able to find and/or choose the exact right person who will be a sales superstar. The conclusion was that it’s practically impossible to identify someone who will be a high-performing sales person.

I heard comments like, “You just can’t find a good sales person. They just don’t seem to want to work hard enough. It’s like I have to do it all.”

After much discussion I wondered out loud, “Is it a matter of finding the right person, or a matter of managing the people you have to make them successful?” In both cases, the people I was talking to were open-minded enough to consider that as being a big factor, one that could make a big difference.

To quote Sheryl Crow in the song, Soak Up The Sun, “It’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.”

Could it be that the solution to finding the right sales superstar is right under your nose? Could it be that you already have the right sales person? Could it be that you need to manage that employee for success, for performance?

In a separate conversation, I asked a manager, “What motivates your sales people?” She looked at me with a blank stare. She had no idea. I asked, “What do you know about your people – and I mean, personally?” Another blank stare. This manager had little to no knowledge about her staff, about what could possibly motivate them to become high-performers.

A theme for many of my blog posts is centered around personal accountability and if you’ve read more than a few of my posts, I suspect you believe in that. If you didn’t take personal responsibility for what goes on around you, it’s likely I would have offended you by now and you wouldn’t be reading this! So, when I suggest that the lack of sales – or anything else for that matter, as I’m using sales as an example right now – is something that you need solve yourself, I suspect you’re already onside with me.

Is it a matter of finding that one-in-million superstar that does everything and more with absolutely no management whatsoever, or is it a matter of looking at yourself – and your company/team as a whole – and figure out how to make that individual or group successful?

Ahh, but one qualifier: I do believe that the person or people you’re managing has to want to be successful, has to want to managed for success. But that’s a topic for another day.

Have you ever choked? I’m not talking about the type of choking where you get something stuck in your throat. No, I’m talking about the Greg Norman at the Masters golf tournament type of choking. The choking that happens when someone stands in front of a group of people and cannot speak. You know – when you’re quite capable of doing something, but for some reason you under-performed.

Most people think they choke because of the pressure, and there is some truth to that. But, from a what’s-going-on-in-your-brain perspective, that’s not the complete story. The pressure you’re under may be a factor, but it’s not the cause.

When an experienced and capable performer over-thinks, that’s when they choke. It’s when a person has a skill or technique down to the level where she no longer has to think about what she’s doing… but she does. It’s when she consciously thinks about the details of the activity, rather than just letting it happen subconsciously. In other words, rather than relying on the automatic response of the subconscious, she starts thinking through each and every minute detail of the activity, resulting in a slow and inefficient performance.

Performers often over-think and over-analyze when they don’t know how they’re doing. They actually try to give themselves feedback. Instead, if you give the feedback, the performer can stay in the automatic or implicit mode, rather than an over-thinking or explicit mode.

So, not only will providing feedback to employees, teammates, children, or whoever help them identify and then repeat good performance, it will guard against the possibility of the person choking. By giving feedback, the performer does not have to think about giving themselves the feedback.

Recall that there are two types of feedback: confirming and corrective. Confirming is the feedback you give when a person has done things well, and you want to reinforce what they did, which increases the chances that they’ll do a good job again. After all, you will tend to repeat what you’re praised or rewarded for, and simple confirming feedback will do that.

Corrective feedback is what it sounds like: correcting the performance. If someone does something wrong, then telling the person what needs to be done the next time is corrective feedback. Note that focusing the feedback, whether confirming or corrective, on the behavior, the act, the performance, and not the person, is critical. If the feedback is aimed personally, it often backfires. So, instead of telling the person that they are great, tell them what they did that was great.

As a general rule, provide the people you want to perform better at least four times as much confirming feedback as you do corrective feedback. For some reason, most people find it is easier to tell people what they’re doing wrong – providing corrective feedback – than it is to give confirming feedback. What’s odd is that most people do not have that same problem when training a dog – they have no problem rewarding the dog for good behavior – and yet they have a tough time doing the same for another human.

Think about the type of feedback you give others, and whether you could help someone who is under pressure to lessen the chances of them choking, and ultimately increase the chances that they’ll perform even better.

Would you spend more time on big picture things, like strategy? More time interacting with those above you, or below you? Spend more time on your own career development, perhaps more time learning?

More time spent on developing processes and systems? More time building your team? More time being creative, looking for innovations? More time surfing the web, checking Facebook and Twitter.

Take a moment to really think about what you would use this extra hour per day for. How important is it for you to do what it is you decided on? Let’s say you decided you would use this extra hour per day for developing processes and systems. How important is that task to the success of your job?

Could it be that your priorities are not right? Could it be that developing processes and systems, for example, is very important – so important that if you don’t do it your boss will think of you as someone who simply gets the minimum done, but will never excel? Could it be that for a healthy career, that task needs to get moved up your priority list?

What if that extra hour was available for personal things? What would you do with it?

For many people I talk to, they would use the extra hour of personal time to focus on their health and fitness. They would workout more. If that’s the case, is this another example of your priorities being less than ideal? Could it be for a healthy life, that task needs to get moved up your priority list?

The reason I’m asking these questions is to get you to re-think your priorities. It’s so easy to think that what we’re currently doing is the right thing. It’s easy to continue to do what we’ve been doing. In fact, it’s harder to change – harder to rearrange our priorities. And if we keep doing the same thing, you know what we’ll get – the same thing we’ve always gotten.

Think about it. If you had one more hour per day, what would you do with it? And then, is that something that you should find a way to work into your day now, by rearranging your priorities? Doing that may just make our professional and personal lives more healthy and productive.

Just in case you missed out on the basics of the forced rankings management approach, it works like this. Each manager, on an annual basis, is to rank all of his or her employees from the best performers to the worst. Then, the bottom 10 percent (or some set number) of employees are let go for not performing well enough. The idea is that with each year, the overall performance will improve as only the best survive.

Here’s my take on the use of forced ranking: It’s the worst method of improving performance in the workplace ever invented. In fact, it’s just plain stupid.

Why? Let me count the ways:

1. It doesn’t improve the long-term performance of employees. In fact, it’s more likely to de-motivate employees and cause them to perform worse. Fear is not a long-term motivator.
2. It assumes the bottom 10 percent, or 1 percent, or 20 percent, or whatever the cut-off point is are not performing. Is it not possible that all employees are performing at a high level?
3. What if most of the employees are not performing? If that was the case, why only deal with the ones below the cut-off point, leaving the other non-performers thinking they’re doing okay?
4. It assumes that the performance problem is the employees’ problem. What if it’s the manager’s fault, or a systems problem, or a lack of resources?
5. The focus is on the people, and not the performance. When management focuses on people, and not on the performance of the employees, it can make the performance even worse.
6. It does not tell you why the bottom performers are not performing. The focus is on the problem, and not the solution.
7. It is usually tied to the employees receiving feedback only at the time of being told. In most cases, the first time an employee learns how he or she is doing is during the annual review period. At that time, the feedback is either “you survived” or “you’re cut.” Rarely is there feedback along the way for the employee to learn how he or she can survive.

Sure, Jack Welch is a brilliant executive. And sure, he made GE perform exceptionally well (certainly from a financial markets perspective). But there is always the exception to the rule, and no one is perfect. I wonder what the long-term impact of using forced rankings will be on GE. I wonder how well GE would perform had he not instituted forced ranking. (I’ve read of managers at GE who fudged the system to avoid being forced to let go good performers)

Forced ranking doesn’t work in the long-term. It’s a lazy way of managing performance. Don’t use it. It sucks.