After reading the post that shared some of Jack Welch’s leadership tips from his book, WINNING, Heather from Southern California asked if one could develop leaders without having first been a leader.

Now, the seemingly obvious response is “no,” right? After all, how can one teach someone to do something that one has not themselves done?

Well, actually, it happens quite frequently.

In sports, the champion coaches were not necessarily the champion athletes. (Famed boxing trainer Angelo Dundee was himself only an average fighter but trained – among others – Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard. He was considered by many to be the top trainer in the sport for 50 years.)

In education, the best teachers were not necessarily the most gifted students.

In sales, the top sales managers were not necessarily the highest-producing salespeople.

How can this be? Because often, those most gifted are so naturally great and talented they simply do not have the empathy and/or patience to effectively work with and develop the greater percentage of those who are not already at an extremely high level. Not to mention (though, I guess that’s exactly what I’m doing) the “naturally gifted”  often don’t even know what they are doing that makes them so great.

Meanwhile, those who had to work harder to accomplish even much less than the natural stars are often much more in tune with what works, can transfer that knowledge to others, are able to help those at all levels build upon their strengths and thus are very successful as coaches and teachers.

However, does that same concept hold with leaders, whether the leader of a huge corporation, network marketing organization, etc.? Or, are we talking “apples and oranges?”

In other words, is business leadership an entirely different game? In order to develop leaders in this context, must the person had to have first been a successful leader himself or herself?

I’d love to know what you think.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Check Your Health Care Premises (Part 1)

The admonition to “check one’s premises” is at the heart (and, indeed within the very title) of this ongoing series regarding Capitalism versus Socialism.

And, perhaps, nowhere is that more important than when it comes to health care.

After all, there are two very key points about our modern healthcare situation; one which is very legitimately at “top of mind awareness” of most American citizens today. And that is:

Our health care system is broken. It is not working. Most people can’t afford it, and most everything about it is now counter-productive and in many ways harmful.

However, the next point is the one that is based on a false premise; a dangerously false premise, and that is:

Capitalism is the cause of our current health care mess. In other words…The free enterprise system has failed us in terms of health care.

And, that is simply false.

Of course, when not checking premises (thus a good chance of a premise being false) it’s easy for one to arrive at that false conclusion. After all, since we don’t have – what they have in many other countries – complete and full “Universal Health Care” the conclusion for many would naturally be that we do have a capitalistic/free enterprise-based health care system.

And that is also false.

We haven’t had a market-driven healthcare system for nearly 50 years. In Part Two of this series we’ll revisit that, see how things were when our healthcare system was market-based (hint: it worked really well) and what actually happened that made it go so far downhill in such a relatively short period of time.

After all, if it wasn’t the Free Enterprise System that turned things south, it had to be something, right? Indeed, and we’ll see exactly what it was.

Please keep in mind that things don’t happen in a vacuum. Typically, not only is there a reason for something, but that something usually happened further back than what is indicated by its current situation; what I call the “emotional decision point” from which we want to “base” the conclusion and subsequent actions.

When that’s the case, too often an emotional decision is made which not only doesn’t allow the actual problem (the cause) to be dealt with and solved but makes its manifestation – or current situation – even worse.

A couple of years ago, Michael Moore’s movie, “Sicko” captured the imagination of the country. I didn’t have to see it to know what would be in it; I’d read plenty of Mr. Moore’s thoughts about health care. I knew that – in his movie – he’d introduce us to Americans who have no health care insurance and are being left to suffer, or worse; to die.

And, you know what? Had I seen his movie, my heart would have broken for them as it does for the many others I know and/or know of who are experiencing this. Indeed, I ask myself why – in this most abundant of nations – should anyone have to go without adequate healthcare? But, before going running to our federal government to set things right for us…I’d check my premises.

Before asking government to be the solution to our “ills” (something at which they’ve proven to be very un-qualified), I’d first ask, “why are we in this position in the first place?”

I know how most politicians, how Michael Moore, and, unfortunately, how most Americans would answer: “The Free Enterprise System has let us down.”

The reason I know this is because I hear it constantly. I only wish that before people – especially those of high influence – would utter these conclusions; that they would first…yep, check their premises.

And that’s what we’ll do in the next installment. I hope you’ll join us.

If you’ve been following my latest tweets (is it just me or does that still sound kind of strange?) you know I’m in the process of reading WINNING by Jack & Suzy Welch and totally loving it. I’ve read one previous book about the former 20-year G.E. Chair & CEO but this is my first one by him (never read his previous books).

His chapter on Leadership is entitled, “IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT YOU.” The fourth and fifth paragaphs sum up his premise on leadership in two brief sentences. They are . . .

Before you are a leader, success is all abut growing yourself.

When you become a leader, success is all about growing others.

While this is a theme that runs through many excellent books on leadership it is what one tends to actually notice in the truly great leaders. While any leader (even a leader based strictly on position) can talk a good game of putting others first, the great ones (What Jim Collins – in his excellent book, Good to Great – calls, “Level Five Leaders”) really do it. It’s simply who they are and how they operate. It is their core essence.

These leaders are “other-focused” as opposed to “I-focused.” They are quick to credit others when things go right and just as quick to accept the blame when things go wrong.

And, to paraphrase an old saying, “they accomplish a lot because they don’t care who gets the credit.” Of course, in the end – and usually long before the end – they also receive a lot of credit, reflected by the respect and admiration of others…and the size of their paychecks.

In John David Mann’s and my book, The Go-Giver, Law Number Three, “The Law of Influence” states, “Your influence is determined by how abundantly you place other people’s interests first.” While the story is told from the point of view of a salesperson the same holds true for a leader, whether that leader leads a family, a tribe, a small division or a huge company or organization.

Actually, the most effective leaders are great salespeople; after all, they sell us on how much potential we have and help bring out our best. And, they do this because their focus is not on themsleves, but on others; they put other people’s intersts first and we respect and admire them for this. Most importantly, we willingly follow them.

What leaders do you know of personally or by reputation who embody Mr. Welch’s (and Mr. Collins’) teaching? Are you that type of leader? I’d love to hear from you.

(If you’re just joining this series, feel free to read the previous installments.)

Welfare – Has it Helped the Poor? (Part 4)

Thus far, we’ve looked at how the government’s “War On Poverty,” carried out through a terribly inefficient, ineffective and counter-productive (we won’t even talk about Unconstitutional since, unfortunately, that seems to be a non-issue these days) system of force, has – like most government programs – made things worse for everyone; most notably the truly needy!

Solutions that have proven to work were suggested, as well as ramping it up to something that would most likely work even better; market-based charities.

But, at the conclusion of the last installment I said there was one more point I wanted to save for its own article, and that is the insult toward all Americans by the very nature of the system itself.

I asked, “Who are government politicians and bureaucrats anyway to imply that without their force, we won’t help out our needy brothers and sisters, whether for one-time emergencies, or to provide them with a helping hand until they can get back on their feet?”

Let’s continue that thought with some excerpts from my friend, David Berland’s book, Libertarianism in One Lesson:

Government welfare programs insult and demean all of us. They tell us we have no compassion. That only legislators and bureaucrats have compassion. They tell us we don’t know how to effectively help people. They tell us we are unwilling to provide assistance to the needy unless we are forced to do so. Not one of these premises is true.

Government welfare interferes with our ability to express compassion for our families, neighbors, and needy people everywhere. Because of the heavy taxes Americans pay, we have less money left over to use as we think best to help other people.

. . . We must respect the compassion that others have because it is the same compassion we experience within ourselves. Most people know government welfare programs are terribly inefficient but still continue to support them precisely because people are compassionate. People don’t want to see others in distress. We all want to live in a world where people generously help each other. The fatal mistake is to believe that compassionate and effective charity can result when government force is used in the place of a genuinely charitable spirit.

I agree with everything David says. And, while the insult being highlighted is not nearly as important as actually helping the poor, the fact is . . . Welfare has simply not helped them.

Overall, government Welfare hurts far more people than it helps, and undermines the work of loving, caring individuals and private charities that have a proven record of helping people turn their lives around.

As we conclude our four-part “series within a series” let’s remember that . . .

#1  We do indeed need to help those who cannot help themselves.

#2  Government is not the proper, nor best qualified entity to take on this very important job.

Yes, let’s get the fate of the poor and truly needy out of the hands of government and into the hands of those who are most qualified to help. That way, we’ll actually help the poor…and not just talk about helping the poor.

In Part 8 we’ll begin a new topic; one that is at the heart of much controversy and, not surprisingly, misunderstanding. And that…is Healthcare

As I’m writing this^*, I’m looking at Maddy the dog, the Labrador retriever of Michele, one of my part-time team members. Maddy is sitting just to the left of me, giving me “that look” (i.e., “feed me, Uncle Bob”).

Interesting thing about Maddy; she looks at everyone as though they are the most important person in her world, and it’s easy to fall in love with her. And, pretty much everyone does.

The office complex management sort of frowns upon pets but everyone in our vicinity adores her. I think the paragraph above explains why. When she’s with you, she gives you her full and loving attention. She is totally in the moment, focusing on every word you say, as well as the way you say it. She even gives feedback (via the speed of her wagging tail) according to your intonation and pitch level.

Of course, her ultimate goal is food (trust me, that *is* Maddy’s ultimate goal). And she seems to see me as an easy “mark”; figuring – and, I suspect, mentally imaging – that, if she keeps looking at me like she is right now, I’ll give her a goody, which, I eventually do every time (even though I keep telling her this is the very last one and absolutely no more . . . and I really do mean it!)

Apparently, she also seems to think I’m a great guy, licking and cuddling up to me after each time I feed her something. (Hmmm. There’s an old saying that “behavior that gets rewarded, gets repeated.” But, as I think that about her, I suspect she’s thinking the same thing about me.)

So, let’s see; she is goal oriented. She treats people kindly. She focuses on the person lovingly and intently. She is graciously persistent. She understands the power of rewarding positive behavior. And, she lives totally  “in the moment.”

These are some great “winning” lessons we can learn from Maddy. “Thank you, good girl, for writing this blog post for me. Here’s a treat . . . but it’s the last one . . . and I really do mean it this time.

*This post is from several years ago, hence the reference to an office complex. Today, “International HQ” is otherwise known as ”one of those rooms in my home.”