October 2022

Featured

Question Of The Month

Interns look to learn from the companies they join. But what can the companies learn from the interns?

The Problem Of Silos, And How To Break Them Down

This Legitimate Leadership breakfast/webinar was held on 29 September 2022; 37 people attended, both in person and remotely.

Many companies face the problem of silos, which disrupt collaborative working and result in lost opportunities.

Accidental Or Deliberate Growth?

Lots of leaders claim that the growth and development of their teams is extremely important but it is only exceptional leaders who truly make this their highest priority.

Middle Managers – From Motivating Staff To Maintaining Company Culture, Demands On Them Intensify As They Juggle The Expectations Of Employees And Senior Leaders

In her middle manager role, Catherine says she has experienced “more pressure” since the start of the pandemic than ever before. Based in Zurich and working for a financial services company, she is trying to navigate a stiffening in senior leadership’s tone, pushback against demands for higher wages and hybrid work plans.


For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com


Question Of The Month 

By Ian Munro, Director, Legitimate Leadership.

Question: Interns look to learn from the companies they join. But what can the companies learn from the interns??

Answer: Whether your internship project is a success or a failure, you can be sure of one thing: it will clarify whether your organisation (or your part of it) is a “giving” or a “taking” one. This is because in almost all internship projects, there will be more “give” by the employer than “take”. And that is essentially because the company is able to give a lot more – it has all the experience and knowledge.

Conversely, the intern is not easily able to give because she does not have that experience and knowledge yet.

The concepts of giving and taking are essential in understanding an internship. Both the manager and the intern need to understand them, and keep conscious of them during the internship. Read the full answer by clicking here .

To submit your question,  email info@legitimateleadership.com


Event: The Problem Of Silos, And How To Break Them Down 

This Legitimate Leadership breakfast / webinar was held on 29 September 2022; 37 people attended, both in person and remotely.

Many companies face the problem of silos, which disrupt collaborative working and result in lost opportunities.

Ian Munro of Legitimate Leadership said when people in organisations see silos developing they typically diagnose them as technology or system issues, or issues with people. But often they are rather issues of culture or leadership.

The breakfast / webinar thereafter addressed (A) WHY SILOS ARE A PROBLEM and (B) WHAT WE SHOULD DO ABOUT SILOS.

READ THE FULL REPORT BY CLICKING HERE


Article: Accidental Or Deliberate Growth?

By Tony Flannigan, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.

Lots of leaders claim that the growth and development of their teams is extremely important but it is only exceptional leaders who truly make this their highest priority.

Clever leaders know that using the job at hand to grow the person is much better than sending them off for classroom training that may or may not be used for months – by which time the person will have forgotten 80% of what they were taught.

Using the job at hand is incredibly useful to grow both technical and functional skills but also to develop people’s maturity of behaviour – such as being more collaborative, not speaking over others, etc.

The big questions therefore become:

  1. Are you even aware that using the job to grow your people is an ‘always on’ opportunity?
  2. Even if you know this:
  • Is growth by accident with no help from you (they are growing themselves as necessity is the mother of invention)?
  • Is growth just spontaneous or opportunistic (in response to an unplanned event or forced upon you)?
  1. Is growth deliberate? That is, you know exactly what growth (be it skills or maturity) you can extract for each person from the job at hand, either planned or unplanned?

For growth to be deliberate you must spend significant time with each member of your team in three ways.

EAD THE FULL REPORT BY CLICKING HERE


Article: Middle Managers — From Motivating Staff To Maintaining Company Culture, Demands On Them Intensify As They Juggle The Expectations Of Employees And Senior Leaders

By Emma Jacobs, Financial Times.

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: This is not about demands for inflation-based increases, hybrid working, or pressure for results – the current presenting issues. It is about how middle managers or managers of first line managers excel irrespective of the current set of environmental conditions. From a Legitimate Leadership perspective, middle managers excel when (1) they coach the first line managers who report to them to care and grow their people, (2) they ask for the means and ability they need to perform as opposed to spending their time providing reports on performance up the line, and (3) they collaborate rather than compete with their peers. They ask for and give help and support to others in the team.

THE ARTICLE: In her middle manager role, Catherine says she has experienced “more pressure” since the start of the pandemic than ever before. Based in Zurich and working for a financial services company, she is trying to navigate a stiffening in senior leadership’s tone, pushback against demands for higher wages and hybrid work plans.

“In the past two years, the company gave a lot of support. The sense is, that’s done,” she says. “We’re entering a different chapter, a different economic context and a push to get people back into the office.” She has received little training on how to manage, though she is grateful for some coaching on building boundaries between work and family life.

“It’s very lonely — my boss is at a different level. I found myself having no place to turn to speak openly [in order to get] a sanity check.”

At the same time, Catherine is putting in long hours trying to motivate her team. She says the new generation coming into work have different expectations of what they want to do. Some of her team members expect nine-to-five jobs.

“Your job is to motivate, but they don’t have the same drive as I did. I have to step in and do a lot of this work. My hours are endless between handholding and managing their work.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

September 2022

FEATURED
Question Of The Month
What does Legitimate Leadership believe about controls in an organisation?
The Cost Of Living Versus The Cost Of Leadership
2022 has seen inflation go from 1% to 10% in many countries, and it is still rising. So the cost of living has dominated headlines as people struggle to make ends meet financially. Money (pounds, dollars, euros, or whatever) is the currency people are focused on.
In these difficult times, obviously leadership is ever more important. But what is the currency of leadership?
Recognizing And Rewarding Behavior, Not Results
There are two possibilities when it comes to rewarding people in organisations: you reward them for the RESULTS (what they Get) or for their CONTRIBUTION (what they Give). People should be rewarded for what they give because this is what they have control over. Rewarding people for results ignores what we all know, which is that the results are always in part attributable to extraneous factors – good or bad luck.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What does Legitimate Leadership believe about controls in an organisation?
Answer: In times of adversity, typically the number of rules and controls, particularly surrounding spending, increases in an attempt to meet tighter budgets – rather than setting cost reduction targets and giving local management the freedom to determine how to achieve them.
There is a misconception that Legitimate Leadership’s position is that all controls are bad and should be done away with. This is simply not true.
Legitimate Leadership in fact believes the following.
  • Freedom without rules and constraints is anarchy.
  • Rules and constraints without freedom is totalitarianism.
  • Empowerment is freedom within constraints.
Read the full answer by clicking here . 
To submit your question,  email info@legitimateleadership.com 

Article:  The Cost Of Living Versus The Cost Of Leadership
By Tony Flannigan, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
2022 has seen inflation go from 1% to 10% in many countries, and it is still rising. So the cost of living has dominated headlines as people struggle to make ends meet financially. Money (pounds, dollars, euros, or whatever) is the currency people are focused on.
In these difficult times, obviously leadership is ever more important. But what is the currency of leadership?
At Legitimate Leadership, we ask people: ‘Who is the boss you would go the extra mile for?’ In response, a room of 15 or so people will always generate a massive list of qualities of a great boss – such as ‘listens to me’, ‘empathetic with me’, ‘consults with me’, ‘stretches me’, ‘gives me killer feedback’, ‘develops me’, ‘coaches me’, ‘knows me’, etc., etc.
A list of 100 or so things a perfect boss must do can easily be generated in this way. This is obviously daunting to both new and existing leaders – as they realise what their teams expect them to be like!
And while it is indeed a daunting list, there are a couple of things that help:
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

Video: Recognizing And Rewarding Behavior, Not Results
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS ARTICLE: There are two possibilities when it comes to rewarding people in organisations: you reward them for the RESULTS (what they Get) or for their CONTRIBUTION (what they Give). People should be rewarded for what they give because this is what they have control over. Rewarding people for results ignores what we all know, which is that the results are always in part attributable to extraneous factors – good or bad luck. Rewarding for the results produced by a collective results in passengers being rewarded when the results are good, and contributors being punished when the results are bad. Rewarding for results moreover produces a short-term focus, selfish and even malevolent behavior. Simon Sinek’s boss was a brave person who rewarded him even though the results were bad, for displaying behaviors aligned to the company’s values. Only when employees who are values-driven are rewarded for doing so, AND those who contravene the values but produce results are punished, will values be instilled – and will values become more than nice words on a wall or the company website.

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: Recognition and reward are important. It doesn’t always have to be financial – it can be public gratitude (you know, praise in public, criticize in private). For instance, ‘I just want to point out … thanks to whoever for doing something,’ in in a large group. That makes people feel good especially when we’re recognizing and rewarding integrity and upholding values.

I’m a huge fan of recognizing and rewarding initiative.

When I was young in my career I worked at a big ad agency. When we had a new business pitch it was the senior folks who did it; the junior kids were just assigned to do support work.

READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY  CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

August 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
Is it ever appropriate to remove decision-making authority or to take back control?
innovating Leadership
Charles Darwin said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
Adam Grant – Beware The 4Rs Of Toxic Work Culture
Tolstoy’s classic novel Anna Karenina famously begins, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
But every toxic company culture isn’t toxic in its own way. Every type of terrible company culture can be traced to just a handful of fundamental errors, apparently.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Is it ever appropriate to remove decision-making authority or to take back control?
Answer: In the Legitimate Leadership framework, empowerment requires a leader to go beyond asking people for their opinions, listening to them, and only then deciding. Empowerment means letting people decide and living with their decisions even if they are contrary to the decisions that the leader would have made.
The degree to which a person is empowered therefore simply equates to the number and types of decisions that the person is now making, independently of their boss, which they weren’t making previously. Conversely, the degree to which a person is being disempowered can be gauged from the number and type of decisions that the person was taking but which have subsequently been taken away from them.
On the assumption that empowerment is “good” and disempowerment is “bad”, it is useful to consider whether it is ever appropriate to remove decision-making authority because to do so is seemingly disempowering.
At Legitimate Leadership, we believe that taking away or reducing people’s decision-making authority is generally not a good move. However there are a few instances where it should be done. We believe it is not good for the following reasons:  Read the full answer by clicking here.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Article: Innovating Leadership
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Charles Darwin said, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
Put another way, when things don’t change, they atrophy or ultimately cease to exist.
Yet management has largely remained unchanged for the past 100 years.
Certainly, what managers believe they are here to do and for what purpose has remained largely unaltered for a century. Ask them (as we at Legitimate Leadership have done across the world for the past 25 years), “What are you here to do and for what purpose?” and the consistent response is, “I am here to get results out of people.”
Managers believe this for two reasons.
Firstly, people in a management role are generally not doing the work themselves – most of what is done is done by others. Secondly, most managers are measured and rewarded based on the results that they get out of people.
The problem with the results-focused conception is that it puts managers into a position where they are experienced by the people they lead as being there to ‘take’ from them. This in turn produces resistance and induces conflict into the relationship. Employees feel they are being coerced or forced when ‘the stick’ is used to get results out of them, and they resist. When ‘the carrot’ is used they feel manipulated, and their instinctive response is to manipulate back.
Legitimate Leadership turns this entire notion on its head.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

Article: Adam Grant – Beware The 4Rs Of Toxic Work Culture
By Jessica Stillman, Contributor, Inc.Com magazine.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS ARTICLE: I find Adam Grant’s mental map extremely helpful. The Relationship-Results continuum speaks to the criterion of Care. In Legitimate Leadership terms, though Care is about tough love, it is acting in the employees’ best interests (which are to be the best human beings that they can be). The Rules-Risk continuum relates to the criterion of Growth or Empowerment.
What Legitimate Leadership believes about controls in an organisation is as follows:
1. Both the retention of control to perpetuity and the instantaneous removal of all control are disenabling.
2. There is a place for control in a legitimate relationship of power as long as it is subordinate to the intention to empower.
3. Freedom without rules or constraints is anarchy. Rules and constraints without freedom is totalitarianism. Empowerment is freedom within constraints.
4. The level of control which is exercised in any legitimate relationship of power must be commensurate with the task and personal maturity of the person being empowered.
SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE: Tolstoy’s classic novel Anna Karenina famously begins, “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
But every toxic company culture isn’t toxic in its own way. Every type of terrible company culture can be traced to just a handful of fundamental errors, apparently.
A “toxic” culture isn’t just one you subjectively don’t like.
On his WorkLife podcast recently, Wharton professor and best-selling author Adam Grant said a toxic company culture is always about a lack of balance. Companies become toxic when they go way too far toward one side on a couple of scales of competing values: relationships versus results and rules versus risk.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

July 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What determines the size of the anti-management population in any organization?
Legitimate Leadership And A Visually-Impaired Participant
In doing the seventh group of a Leadership Excellence Programme for a leading financial services company in South Africa, Legitimate Leadership consultant, Leonie van Tonder, faced a challenge when she was informed that there would be a visually-impaired person in the group.
Managers Aren’t Heroes But They Deserve More Understanding
Management is not a heroic calling. There is no Marvel character called “Captain Slide Deck”. Books and television shows set in offices are more likely to be comedic than admiring. When dramas depict the workplace, managers are almost always covering up some kind of chemical spill. Horrible bosses loom large in reality as well as in the popular imagination: if people leave their jobs, they often do so to escape bad managers. And any praise for decent bosses is tempered by the fact that they are usually paid more than the people they manage: they should be good.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What determines the size of the anti-management population in any organisation?
Answer: In any community of employees there will always be two populations: one which is anti-management and another which is pro-management. The two populations will always exist but the size of the positive group, and hence the degree to which there is overall trust in management, will be directly determined by the perceived intent of the leader(s) of the community.
The consistent finding of Legitimate Leadership research is that trust varies. In a retail bank, for example, trust levels in one branch were found to be dramatically different from a branch around the corner. Similarly, in a hospital, trust was seen to differ from ward to ward purely as a function of the ward sister’s relationship with nursing staff.
Intent is about whose interests in the relationship are believed to be being served. When managers are perceived to be pursuing their own interests, to only be in the relationship to get something out of their people, trust in them will be low. Only when managers are there to give to or serve their people, will their staff be willing to give to them – because they trust that management has their best interests at heart.
What those in authority have to give to their people, what earns them trust, is not money. Across the world, from an illiterate miner shovelling rock several kilometres underground to the CEO of one of the biggest cell phone companies in Thailand, our experience shows that what management needs to give distils down to only two drops of essence.
Firstly, managers have to have a genuine concern for those in their charge. They have to care for their people as human beings – not as human resources which help their bottom line to grow. Secondly, they have to enable their people to realise the very best in themselves.
The price to be paid before employees will be truly willing to deliver on command is therefore not money; it is care and growth. This is what makes the power which is exercised by those in authority legitimate. When the price of power is not paid, people become resistant, no matter how much they are paid.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Vignette Case Study: Legitimate Leadership And A Visually-Impaired Participant
By Leonie van Tonder, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In doing the seventh group of a Leadership Excellence Programme for a leading financial services company in South Africa, Legitimate Leadership consultant, Leonie van Tonder, faced a challenge when she was informed that there would be a visually-impaired person in the group.
Leonie says that she had never handled this type of challenge before and “anxiety was abundant!”
It was planned that the initial two-day Introduction to Legitimate Leadership would be in person and the subsequent application modules and reviews would be online, because the participants were spread across the country.
The interaction during sessions both in person and online is typically very visual, with writing on whiteboards and slides. So, the first question for Leonie was how to get past this.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

Article: Managers Aren’t Heroes But They Deserve More Understanding
By Bartleby, The Economist magazine.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY STUART FOULDS, ASSOCIATE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: The Legitimate Leadership model originally came into existence, and has become ever more relevant over many decades, precisely because of the challenging, complex and vital nature of the leader’s role. This Economist article highlights several important issues:
  • The impact of good versus bad bosses on productivity is indeed striking. Legitimate Leadership maintains that the way leaders lead is the single most important determinant of whether employees grudgingly do the minimum they can get away with, or whether they show up enthusiastically and willing to make their best possible contribution towards achieving the organisation’s goals.
  • It is also true, though, that excellence in leadership is genuinely difficult to achieve and sustain. This ‘structurally difficult’ job requires a complex mix of building deeply trust-based relationships and truly enabling employees’ performances over time. Moreover, the conflicting demands and stresses leaders face are becoming increasingly challenging, in step with the growing pace and complexity of our workplaces – not to mention the drive for ‘agile’ ways of working.
Yet in many of the organisations Legitimate Leadership works with, leaders say they find few opportunities to acquire genuinely useful and practical concepts and tools to guide them in doing their people leadership work well. We at Legitimate Leadership believe passionately that equipping leaders at all levels in this way is the best investment any organisation can make in achieving a sustainable, trust-based culture of excellence.
THE ARTICLE: Management is not a heroic calling. There is no Marvel character called “Captain Slide Deck”. Books and television shows set in offices are more likely to be comedic than admiring. When dramas depict the workplace, managers are almost always covering up some kind of chemical spill. Horrible bosses loom large in reality as well as in the popular imagination: if people leave their jobs, they often do so to escape bad managers. And any praise for decent bosses is tempered by the fact that they are usually paid more than the people they manage: they should be good.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

June 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Being Methodical About Empowerment
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave.
Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Joolz Lewis, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Answer: This question frequently crops up with Legitimate Leadership consultants. As organisations rightfully focus on how to create safe environments for their people to work without fear of discrimination, it is also important to ensure that leaders can censure and discipline their people when needed.
The issue at stake for individual leaders is courage.
Leaders are not leaders unless and until they have a relationship of trust with their people. That trust is built on a personal relationship which requires the leader to put the employees’ interests first, to care for them as human beings – not just as human resources – and to grow them not just to be better, but excellent. This cannot be done without setting standards – behavioural and performance.
When employees do a good job, it is good manners to say thank you and give praise. When employees go above and beyond to make an exceptional contribution it is only right that they should be rewarded for doing so.
So what happens when standards are not met? Ignoring this for fear of retribution is effectively saying ‘it doesn’t matter’, and over time the inevitable decline leads to mediocrity or worse. This is reason enough to censure or discipline when needed.
But it’s not the core reason.  Read the full answer by clicking here clicking here .
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Vignette Case Study: Being Methodical About Empowerment
By Rachael Cowin, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In the Legitimate Leadership Framework there are five steps to guide managers in effectively handing over control. In a recent discussion with managers, they pointed out two instances in which following the five steps methodically prevented them from rushing through and endangering the success of the process.
The five steps in the Legitimate Leadership Framework are: 1, decide on the next incremental handover; 2, teach people the why and how; 3, test for ability (know-how and know-why); 4, hand over the means, including decision-making authority; and 5, hold the person accountable.
In the discussion with managers about situations in which empowerment had failed, the conclusion was that this had commonly been because they had rushed through teaching people and testing for ability (steps 2 and 3 above). The conclusion was they had rushed because they had acted expediently and wanted to assume that they could move on in one step.
Two leaders in the group shared specific examples in which using the Legitimate Leadership five-step process made them more methodical and incremental.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

Podcast: Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
In the podcast Wendy set out the origins and basic tenets of Legitimate Leadership. Below is our summary of what she said.
Legitimate Leadership was virtually born in the world’s largest explosive factory, near Johannesburg, South Africa.
In the early 1990s, things were not going well in this factory. It had suffered two explosions, resulting in 14 fatalities. The explosives company had shortly before this been taken over by UK chemicals company ICI. ICI told the management of the explosives factory, ‘We don’t care that you have 87% of the explosives market in South Africa, we don’t kill people. So fix the problem or we will close you down.’
Management realised that if you have a safety problem, you have a people problem. If you have a people problem, you have a leadership problem. In other words, management itself was the problem.
So management looked for something that would be a golden thread to which they could revert for guidance on leadership. They found the framework upon which Legitimate Leadership is based.
Three years later the factory was acknowledged to be the safest explosives factory in the world.
It was, three years later, approximately the same factory as before (except that it had stopped using nitro-glycerine), and it was staffed by approximately the same people. The factor which had changed was the way leadership was done.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS PODCAST BY CLICKING HERE
TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST CLICK HERE

Article: Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
From the Brain Food blog archive.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY ANGELA DONNELLY, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP CANADA: Fascination with game theory, specifically as it relates to co-operative versus self-interested behaviour and outcomes led me to this article. I enjoyed the parallels to the Legitimate Leadership Framework and specifically the important role trust plays when leaders empower their people. Legitimate Leadership argues that TRUST must precede TRUSTWORTHINESS. Leaders take risks when empowering their people because they are required to suspend their need to control the outcomes. The results are no longer predictable. Trusting team members however results in something called positive asymmetry – a lot of upside and little downside. A low-trust approach reduces positive asymmetry. In an effort to avoid being taken advantage of by the untrustworthy few, managers put unnecessary controls in place, and in doing so forgo the asymmetric upside. Low trust eliminates the upside and results in a mindset of distrust and worry. As the article says, a low trust approach might put a floor on how often you get taken advantage of, but it puts a ceiling on what’s possible!
THE ARTICLE: Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.
Asymmetry is different. Even people who understand asymmetry consistently underestimate its power.
Positive asymmetry happens when you have a lot of upside and little downside. Negative asymmetry is when you have little upside and high downside. Finding hidden or overlooked asymmetry is the key to an unstoppable advantage. And there is a lot of it hiding in plain sight.
Consider trust. A lot of people are slow to trust. Their default level of trust is about 40% and you earn more.
Very few people understand that a low trust approach reduces positive asymmetry.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

May 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Being Methodical About Empowerment
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave.
Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.

 


For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Joolz Lewis, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How can leaders hold their people appropriately accountable without fear of being held up for bullying or harassment?
Answer: This question frequently crops up with Legitimate Leadership consultants. As organisations rightfully focus on how to create safe environments for their people to work without fear of discrimination, it is also important to ensure that leaders can censure and discipline their people when needed.
The issue at stake for individual leaders is courage.
Leaders are not leaders unless and until they have a relationship of trust with their people. That trust is built on a personal relationship which requires the leader to put the employees’ interests first, to care for them as human beings – not just as human resources – and to grow them not just to be better, but excellent. This cannot be done without setting standards – behavioural and performance.
When employees do a good job, it is good manners to say thank you and give praise. When employees go above and beyond to make an exceptional contribution it is only right that they should be rewarded for doing so.
So what happens when standards are not met? Ignoring this for fear of retribution is effectively saying ‘it doesn’t matter’, and over time the inevitable decline leads to mediocrity or worse. This is reason enough to censure or discipline when needed.
But it’s not the core reason.  Read the full answer by clicking here clicking here .
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Vignette Case Study: Being Methodical About Empowerment
By Rachael Cowin, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In the Legitimate Leadership Framework there are five steps to guide managers in effectively handing over control. In a recent discussion with managers, they pointed out two instances in which following the five steps methodically prevented them from rushing through and endangering the success of the process.
The five steps in the Legitimate Leadership Framework are: 1, decide on the next incremental handover; 2, teach people the why and how; 3, test for ability (know-how and know-why); 4, hand over the means, including decision-making authority; and 5, hold the person accountable.
In the discussion with managers about situations in which empowerment had failed, the conclusion was that this had commonly been because they had rushed through teaching people and testing for ability (steps 2 and 3 above). The conclusion was they had rushed because they had acted expediently and wanted to assume that they could move on in one step.
Two leaders in the group shared specific examples in which using the Legitimate Leadership five-step process made them more methodical and incremental.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

Podcast: Legitimate Leadership’s Roots In Workplace Safety
Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, was recently interviewed by Christian Hunt for the HumanRisk podcast. Hunt founded UK-based HumanRisk (www.human-risk.com) to ‘bring behavioural science to ethics and compliance’ in helping organisations to understand and minimize human risk.
In the podcast Wendy set out the origins and basic tenets of Legitimate Leadership. Below is our summary of what she said.
Legitimate Leadership was virtually born in the world’s largest explosive factory, near Johannesburg, South Africa.
In the early 1990s, things were not going well in this factory. It had suffered two explosions, resulting in 14 fatalities. The explosives company had shortly before this been taken over by UK chemicals company ICI. ICI told the management of the explosives factory, ‘We don’t care that you have 87% of the explosives market in South Africa, we don’t kill people. So fix the problem or we will close you down.’
Management realised that if you have a safety problem, you have a people problem. If you have a people problem, you have a leadership problem. In other words, management itself was the problem.
So management looked for something that would be a golden thread to which they could revert for guidance on leadership. They found the framework upon which Legitimate Leadership is based.
Three years later the factory was acknowledged to be the safest explosives factory in the world.
It was, three years later, approximately the same factory as before (except that it had stopped using nitro-glycerine), and it was staffed by approximately the same people. The factor which had changed was the way leadership was done.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS PODCAST BY CLICKING HERE
TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST CLICK HERE

Article: Trusting Team Members Results In Positive Asymmetry
From the Brain Food blog archive.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY ANGELA DONNELLY, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP CANADA: Fascination with game theory, specifically as it relates to co-operative versus self-interested behaviour and outcomes led me to this article. I enjoyed the parallels to the Legitimate Leadership Framework and specifically the important role trust plays when leaders empower their people. Legitimate Leadership argues that TRUST must precede TRUSTWORTHINESS. Leaders take risks when empowering their people because they are required to suspend their need to control the outcomes. The results are no longer predictable. Trusting team members however results in something called positive asymmetry – a lot of upside and little downside. A low-trust approach reduces positive asymmetry. In an effort to avoid being taken advantage of by the untrustworthy few, managers put unnecessary controls in place, and in doing so forgo the asymmetric upside. Low trust eliminates the upside and results in a mindset of distrust and worry. As the article says, a low trust approach might put a floor on how often you get taken advantage of, but it puts a ceiling on what’s possible!
THE ARTICLE: Linear games are won by working harder than others. And the harder other people work, the higher the bar. You need to work harder and harder, just to stay in the same relative position.
Asymmetry is different. Even people who understand asymmetry consistently underestimate its power.
Positive asymmetry happens when you have a lot of upside and little downside. Negative asymmetry is when you have little upside and high downside. Finding hidden or overlooked asymmetry is the key to an unstoppable advantage. And there is a lot of it hiding in plain sight.
Consider trust. A lot of people are slow to trust. Their default level of trust is about 40% and you earn more.
Very few people understand that a low trust approach reduces positive asymmetry.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

April 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What should I as an employee do when my annual appraisal comes as a totally negative surprise?
If You Want Good Safety Culture, Focus On Your Leadership Practice
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave.
How To Get World-Dominating Performance From Insignificant Improvement
Legitimate Leadership says that results don’t come from looking at the scoreboard and shouting for more! Results come from setting standards of individual contribution, giving the person the means and ability to achieve that contribution, and then raising the bar (of that contribution).

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Sean Hagger, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What should I as an employee do when my annual appraisal comes as a totally negative surprise?
Answer: Never leave the room with any doubt as to the expectation required. In the short term this can feel rather over-the-top, but in my experience it is best to make sure you are working on the value-adding items that your line manager(s) have prioritised. Priorities change, people are not born good communicators, and the relationship with your line manager needs to be worked on like any relationship. If your line manager has not scheduled one-to-ones, then put them in yourself. Failing that, make sure you update him/her with your understanding of the expectations and priorities.
Use a 90-day cycle for writing your own value-adding deliverables and share them with your line manager. Ideally, this should be driven by the manager – but in the absence of that, it is up to you. Make sure you have at least three updates per year with your line manager on your performance – seek feedback and seek understanding.
Quite often, conscientious individuals will take on more and more work and they do this with entirely the right intent. They can often burn themselves out trying to please everyone. It is a very important skill to know where your limits are and provide that feedback up the chain.
It is perfectly okay to challenge with evidence if you feel the end-of-year appraisal hasn’t taken into consideration all your contributions from the year.
I stress Legitimate Leadership’s position is that the manager, not the employee, should be providing the clarity of expectation, and doing so regularly.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Article: If You Want Good Safety Culture, Focus On Your Leadership Practice
By Rachael Cowin, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Many organisations talk about the creation of an appropriate safety culture, but in practice, how is this addressed? Safety culture is fundamentally a subset of the organisational culture or ‘how we do things round here’. At Legitimate Leadership we believe that this is determined by how leaders within the organisation are motivated and behave. Indeed, it was the recognition that a safety problem was, in fact, a leadership problem that first brought the founder, Wendy Lambourne, to the model underpinning our work.
There are many connections between legitimate leaders and appropriate safety culture. Here are some of the key ones:
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

Video: How To Get World-Dominating Performance From Insignificant Improvements
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY TONY FLANNIGAN, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Legitimate Leadership says that results don’t come from looking at the scoreboard and shouting for more! Results come from setting standards of individual contribution, giving the person the means and ability to achieve that contribution, and then raising the bar (of that contribution). Too often we convince ourselves that massive success requires massive actions – whether it is losing weight, building a business, writing a book, winning a championship, or achieving any other goal. We put too much pressure on ourselves to make some earth-shattering improvement that everyone will talk about. While improving by just 1% isn’t particularly notable – and in many instances isn’t even noticeable – it will be far more meaningful in the long run. Most of the significant things in life are not stand-alone events, but rather the sum of all the moments when we choose to do things 1% better. Equally, this works in reverse: if you accept an imperceptibly small deterioration in standards day after day, you will wonder why you end up in a place you do not want to be and have a mountain to climb to get back to acceptable performance. How do you get world-dominating performance? Answer: by setting standards and constantly raising the bar by tiny increments, each of which are insignificant in themselves.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: The fate of British cycling changed in 2003. David Brailsford became the performance director. When he was hired, Britain had suffered nearly 100 years of mediocrity. Since 1908, British riders had won just a single gold medal at the Olympic Games. Also, in 110 years, no British rider had ever won the Tour de France.
Brailsford came in with a plan which he called the aggregation of marginal gains – a philosophy of searching for tiny margins of improvement in every single thing you do. He told his team that the idea was if you break down every single thing that goes into riding the bike, then improve it by 1%, you will get a significant improvement when you put all the improvements together.
Tiny improvements began. Bike seats were designed to be more comfortable. Riders wore electronically fitted shorts to maintain ideal muscle temperature when riding. New riding clothing was developed of lighter fabric.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

March 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What is the fundamental shift in focus required from management in order to achieve better results?
Are Your Employee Survey Results Plateauing Despite You Going Overboard On Engagement?
There is a difference between Engagement, Enablement and Empowerment!
A lot of employers are becoming increasingly frustrated that despite having comprehensive engagement plans, their employee survey results are firmly stuck in the mediocre position.
Five Lessons From Julia Galef’s Book, The Scout Mindset
Leaders are increasingly navigating complex social environments with individuals’ strongly-held beliefs getting in the way of meaningful debate and collaboration in the workplace.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What is the fundamental shift in focus required from management in order to achieve better results?
Answer: That excellent results can only be produced by excellent people – be they mountaineers, athletes or employees – is common sense. So too is the notion that the best route to sustainable organisational excellence is the relentless pursuit of human excellence in all those in the organisation.
But following through on this understanding is not easy. This is because it requires people to do something which feels absolutely counter-intuitive. For those in the business’s front line it requires a shift in the focus of their attention from what they want to “get” (the desired result) to what they should “give” to effect excellence in the task in front of them.
It requires them to take yet a further step back from the results. That is, to take their eyes off the results and put their attention on their people. It requires them to focus on giving their people what they need (Means, Ability and Accountability) to excel at the task and ultimately to realise the very best in themselves.
Another young leader in India used the analogy of a guided missile: your people could be highly motivated, full of potential and eager to show what they can do – but if you point them at the wrong contribution, or worse still don’t point them at anything, then this could result in chaos and devastation.  Read full answer by clicking here.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Article: Are Your Employee Survey Results Plateauing Despite You Going Overboard On Engagement?
By Tony Flannigan, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
There is a difference between Engagement, Enablement and Empowerment!
A lot of employers are becoming increasingly frustrated that despite having comprehensive engagement plans, their employee survey results are firmly stuck in the mediocre position.
The three ‘E’ words are bandied about frequently in today’s business environment – but are we using them interchangeably and confusing the intent behind each one?
In the Legitimate Leadership Model each of these words has a specific meaning.
The first thing to recognise is that they are all good and are to be encouraged!
Arguably they form a hierarchy towards building very capable people who are willingly to go the extra mile and be held accountable for their contributions.
Engagement is the basis of good communication.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE

Article: Five Lessons From Julia Galef’s Book, The Scout Mindset
By Jon Hersey, managing editor of The Objective Standard. Julia Galef is co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality, based in California. This article was published in Quillette.
COMMENT BY ANGELA DONNELLY, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP CANADA, ON THIS ARTICLE: Leaders are increasingly navigating complex social environments with individuals’ strongly-held beliefs getting in the way of meaningful debate and collaboration in the workplace. Galef’s book highlights our tendency to employ “motivated reasoning” to defend pre-existing beliefs and conclusions. She calls this a Soldier mindset – the tendency to defend one’s ideas at all costs, and thus limit receptiveness to receiving new information. Legitimate Leadership articulates Intent as our deeper motivation, the ‘why’ behind what we do. This Intent can either be to GET, or to GIVE. When we are there to GET, we are motivated by our needs and desire to control the outcome. We are thus constrained by presumption and act expediently. Galef’s Soldier mindset! However, when our intent is to GIVE, we rise above the constraints of internalised beliefs and conclusions – and become receptive to alternative perspectives. Galef refers to this as adopting a Scout mindset. I see motivated reasoning and conditional intent (giving to get something later or desiring a specific outcome) as two sides of the same coin.
THE ARTICLE: Respect for reason has waxed and waned throughout history. Today, its tide is receding. University professors resign in frustration from what were once our bastions of rationality. Increasingly, the barbarians are not merely at the gates, but running the show in a vast swathe of humanities departments. After decades of decay in our academic training grounds, radical identitarianism and other irrationalities are spreading with accelerating speed, and we are woefully short of thinkers capable of fighting them.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE

February 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
Why, in the Legitimate Leadership Model, is clarification of expectations so important for enabling contribution?
The Legitimate Leadership Approach Replaces The Fist
In a gap in his career, a manager, Lee Thomas, who had gone through the full process of a Legitimate Leadership intervention at his former company years before, applied what he knew to turn around a business which was in a steep down-spiral.
Watching The Game With The Right Intent Makes The Most Impact
After close to a year as a Legitimate Leadership consultant I was recently asked which practice in the methodology and framework had made the biggest impact on my client groups. This is a tough question to answer since every aspect of the approach fundamentally shifts the way leaders see their role.
People Versus The Drive For Success … Which Wins?
A people transformation takes time. It starts with listening to and trusting people. It is enabled by valuing and demonstrating gratitude for people’s contributions. It is a journey of incremental steps forward. In any transformation there are defining moments.

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Tony Flannigan, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Why, in the Legitimate Leadership Model, is clarification of expectations so important for enabling contribution?
Answer: Legitimate Leadership says that people are far more likely to give when they have clarity regarding what they should be giving – as Marcus Buckingham said, “There is no such thing as a confused, productive employee.” Also, an employee cannot be held accountable if what s/he is accountable for has not been clarified and agreed in the first place.
More insight into this was recently offered by a young female manager participant in India. She said a two-way conversation allows people to talk about the Means and Ability they need for success – but also allows the leader to explain what growth s/he wants for the person by completing what may be a routine task.
This links into the fundamental Legitimate Leadership concept of using the job to grow the person. For instance, you are going to install a new kiln next month – but your growth would be to control your short temper with your colleagues (a behavioural improvement). Or, you are going to do a life cycle costing of the economics of operating that kiln over a five-year period – which would result in a performance/skill improvement.
Another young leader in India used the analogy of a guided missile: your people could be highly motivated, full of potential and eager to show what they can do – but if you point them at the wrong contribution, or worse still don’t point them at anything, then this could result in chaos and devastation.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

Case Study: The Legitimate Leadership Approach Replaces The Fist
By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.
In a gap in his career, a manager, Lee Thomas, who had gone through the full process of a Legitimate Leadership intervention at his former company years before, applied what he knew to turn around a business which was in a steep down-spiral. He did not remember all the Legitimate Leadership terminology, but the approach was “hard to forget” he says – and it had dramatic results for the business and its employees.
It was an owner-run engineering and manufacturing business. It had been going for 49 years when Lee became involved, and by then the owner was in his late 70s. The owner had a tough background and ran the business in a tough way. He and three men he had appointed to run it with him controlled it with tight fists – often actually. Most of the approximately 55 employees were minimum-wage and were working there because they could not find other jobs. Management’s approach was, “Use the stick, and if that doesn’t work use it harder.” The owner spoke of it as a family business, but it was anything other than that.
The results were not good – reflected in high staff turnover (about five people every month left and had to be replaced) as well as an extremely high 85% rate of returns of products sold due to quality problems.
High street banks had stopped lending to the business, and in order to keep it afloat, the owner had been forced to go to private banks which charged higher interest rates. But the banks had insisted that he restructure and revamp the business. Which was where Lee came in.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY  CLICKING HERE

Article: Watching The Game With The Right Intent Makes The Most Impact
By Joolz Lewis, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
After close to a year as a Legitimate Leadership consultant I was recently asked which practice in the methodology and framework had made the biggest impact on my client groups. This is a tough question to answer since every aspect of the approach fundamentally shifts the way leaders see their role.
But if I had to choose, it would be what we call ‘Watching the Game’. Here’s why.
Clearly, the scoreboard is important. You know what the business needs to achieve, how to measure it and what KPIs or lag/lead indicators you need to track.
It’s also true that your people need to know what goals and results they are working towards. How else do they know what difference their contribution is making, or how they can add value?
But once the results and targets have been clarified and communicated, you need to quickly shift your attention to what your people can individually contribute towards achieving those results. This is about actively growing them, ensuring they have everything they need to give of their best.
There’s only one true way you can determine whether your people have what they need to make real contributions – whether that’s the means (tools, time, authority etc.), the ability or the will. That’s by watching the game.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE

Video: People Versus The Drive For Success … Which Wins?
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: It is care and growth, not care or growth. And of the two, care is primary. It is what gives leaders the license to grow. If leaders are setting the bar high and insisting on excellence, but with the intent to enable people to be the best that they can be, this is fundamentally different from driving people in the relentless pursuit of the results. The former brings out the best in people; the latter not only exhausts people but leads them to leave, either literally or through a withdrawal of their willingness.
OUR RENDITION OF THIS VIDEO: Sinek talks a lot about having empathy and that leaders should look at people as human beings. But surely there is a tension between that and the will to succeed? How is that best balanced? Surely you can have a wonderful organizational culture that isn’t actually advancing the ball?
Sinek’s reply is that the tension is healthy. “If all you have is empathy then you have a hippie commune and you’re not actually going to cure anything. But if all you’re doing is driving the numbers, you are going to have a short life span and break the machine. Also, you might have a spike and then you’ll disappear. All your best people will say, ‘I hate it here’ and go and work somewhere else and take all their brilliance somewhere else. So there is a balance.
READ THE FULL RENDITION OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

January 2022

FEATURED
Question of the Month
What is the big deal about accountability – why would it improve the bottom line?
The Power Of Information Sharing
Who would have thought that you could unlock the willingness of your people to contribute to the goals and objectives of the organisation by simply giving them information on how the factory is doing on a monthly basis?
Everybody Matters – A Documentary On The Best-Selling Book
A people transformation takes time. It starts with listening to and trusting people. It is enabled by valuing and demonstrating gratitude for people’s contributions. It is a journey of incremental steps forward. In any transformation there are defining moments.


Legitimate Leadership Programme
February 2022  
Executive Overview Of The Legitimate Leadership Model
One Day Programme
22 February 2022
Houghton Golf Club, Johannesburg, South Africa
Introduction To The Legitimate Leadership Model
Two Day Programme
23 & 24 February 2022
Zoom
For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail  events@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 
By Ian Munro, Director, Legitimate Leadership 
Question: What is the big deal about accountability – why would it improve the bottom line?
Answer: Accountability is a huge opportunity which many businesses are missing. There is no business that we have consulted to that wouldn’t have experienced a significant improvement in performance if people just did what they said they would do. Conversely, everyone has had the privilege of working with people who are entirely dependable – they always deliver what they say they will. There are a few simple things you and your leadership team can do to get closer to this:
1. Start caring about the right things. Legitimate leaders care about two things: people and results. Not “people for the results they produce”, but “people and the results they produce”.  READ THE FULL ANSWER BY CLICKING HERE
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com

ARTICLE: THE POWER OF INFORMATION SHARING
By Wendy Lambourne,  Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Who would have thought that you could unlock the willingness of your people to contribute to the goals and objectives of the organisation by simply giving them information on how the factory is doing on a monthly basis?
In December 2014 a senior manufacturing manager at a manufacturing plant in Garankuwa, North West Province, South Africa, attended a two day Legitimate Leadership workshop and decided to make some changes when he returned to the factory. One of these was that he would share information regularly on how the factory was doing and particularly how it was contributing to the overall goals and objectives of the business.
This manager decided that he would start the process by explaining how the monthly costs were made up; the difference between fixed and variable costs; and where his manufacturing team could make a difference.
He was really not sure how this would be received because historically his experience was that management only shared information on costs just prior to wage negotiations – and that was done with the express intent to make a case for not acceding to the “excessive” wage demands of the unions.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY  CLICKING HERE


VIDEO: EVERYBODY MATTERS – A DOCUMENTARY ON THE BEST-SELLING BOOK
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO: A people transformation takes time. It starts with listening to and trusting people. It is enabled by valuing and demonstrating gratitude for people’s contributions. It is a journey of incremental steps forward. In any transformation there are defining moments. The 2008 financial crash gave the leadership of Barry-Wehmiller an opportunity to demonstrate their intent. They passed the intent test and that is what “sealed the deal” and convinced people that the GPL (Guiding Principles of Leadership) “was real”. If they had failed the intent test they would have given people cause to believe the opposite. Whenever leaders pass the intent test (put their people’s interests first and do the right thing rather than the expedient thing) their people trust them more.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: When children say they want to be a doctor, a pilot or a fireman, they are envisaging occupations and jobs which will be fulfilling. It is not surprising that they have these positive hopes because each one is someone’s precious child. Someone cares for them, someone values them, someone wants them to be happy and find fulfilment in their life. To those children, work is going to be fun. They never dream that work might be a dismal existence in which they’re micromanaged into oblivion. So why is it, when we go to work, most employers don’t think of us as precious or valued? Instead, we are what we do. We are functions rather than people. We’re expendable, we don’t really matter.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE  BY  CLICKING HERE
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE  BY  CLICKING HERE