I've used the fantastic Band of Brothers series in a leadership lecture before and I still love it. Watch this video and see, especially in the first few minutes, how Captain Winters (the red-haired guy) gets his men to advance on the village under extreme conditions.

It is amazing to me, every time I read or see a depiction or hear a story of men under fire. How do they do it? Why do they do it? Part of it is pure leadership - these men see a leader and follow him. More important is not just that he leads, but that they know him. And trust him. Why else would a man get out of the relative safety of a ditch and run into machine gun fire? They trust their captain.

Can we say that about the people under us? Will they do the nasty parts of their jobs willingly? Do you lead them into that nastiness? Do they trust you, know you, and believe you'd only ask them if it was best for them, the company, and, especially in their eyes, for you?

Been  very slack on the blogging lately - kind of stuck in my world of trying to work hard as a doc, not able to spend as much time as small business guy. But this blog by Perry Noble cracked me up and I had to share it with you. I just love thinking of how new technology has changed our lives - and we don't even appreciate it!

How do budding entrepreneurs find ideas for their business? Scouring the internet? From the masses of garbage emails ("Work from Home - earn millions!") that hit the inbox?

Scott Shane who is a professor of entrepreneurial studies at Case Western (now that is a title!) has written a book, "The Illusions of Entrepreneurship", which addresses this. He states that only 1/3 of entrepreneurs systematically searched for an idea for their new business. 70.9% responded that their interest wasn't a "one-time thing," but instead, developed over time. And they found them in their own previous industries in many cases (55%). Shane suggests that ". . . most entrepreneurs come up with new business ideas by noticing gaps and problems in how customers are being served, while working for someone else."

I suggest that a lot of entrepreneurs might be smart - they know and, hopefully, love the industry they're in, but want to do it themselves. It may be they think they can do it better than what they've seen, as Shane suggests. Or it might be that they want more independence in what they themselves do - more autonomy, more responsibility, more direct input into the success of the company.

And they stay in the business they know.

Smart, right?

Well, only if they have a passion for their new business, not just comfort. Not if they are trading one job in an industry (widget analyst) for many, many jobs (widget analyst and budget analyst and accountant and lease negotiator and manager and HR specialist and and and . . .)

You still have to do it for the right reasons, not matter how you find it.

Taking a page from The E-myth series by Michael Gerber is this article from StartUp Nation.

Set processes; make it so any dufus can train or maintain, and you make your life so much easier!

I don't like bonuses. Sorry, all you employees out there.

Bonuses remind me of Clark Griswold in Christmas Vacation, dejectedly plinking the diving board of his miniature pool, hoping against hope that his Christmas bonus, which he's gotten every year, will come to cover the down payment on his real-size pool.

The reason I don't like bonuses is that they become an expectation rather than a reward. No matter how you do, many businesses give bonuses at a programmed time each year - usually cash, usually related to your level in the company.

How about this - don't pay for breathing and not getting fired, pay for success! Scheme bullet points for employees that, if met, help both the employee and the business. It can be as simple as reading a book on business (any of the Patrick Lencioni books will do!). But they don't have to be that specific. Give a smart person a general, yet worthy goal, such as "Increasing revenue to X dollars this six months" and they'll figure out a way to do it. Whether its improving their customers' satisfaction, working more efficiently, staying longer when needed - whatever it takes, they'll do it to create success for the business and, in turn, for themselves.

If some of these goals require more than one employee or more than one department to accomplish, it creates an entirely different dynamic. Get everyone to create success for the business as a team and life is sweeter for the employees and the owner.

And don't call it a bonus!

Suppose you only had 30 days to live - how would you act? What would you do differently?

The leaders at my church have been reading a book called "One Month to Live" by Kerry and Chris Shook that asks that very question. Each day is a short chapter addressing a specific issue one might want to address in the little time you have left.

Our pastor, Jon McClarnon, started to address this issue as well today, and will continue to do so for the next few weeks. He showed a video of a young women with metastatic breast cancer who really does know she has only a bit of time to live. Seeing her viewpoint was pretty powerful stuff.

As for me, though, the first chapter in our book asks a simple question - Without thinking too hard, what are five things you would do today if you knew you only had 30 days to live? The first two on my mind and on my notebook were 1) Quit working and, 2) Sell the gym.

I think a lot of people would want to quit work immediately - almost a no-brainer. Selling the business is a bit more difficult. I wouldn't want my wife to have to deal with a start-up business she has no real knowledge of nor passion for. That's the main reason. I wouldn't want her to deal with the financial problems as well, given the others she would have. But I wouldn't want the worries for the little time I have left either.

The natural follow up - why not act that way now? This is asked several times in the book and by Pastor Jon today about various actions you might take with only 30 days to live yet don't do now - speaking to those who've hurt you, improving your relationship with God, family, friends among others. In this case, why not sell the gym now? What's different? I guess I presume I'm going to continue to live and make it a success but that certainly isn't assured. We are only given today, after all. A job is different - the business can continue without me. My business isn't like that.

This book and the discussions we have every Thursday morning about it make me think about the role of the gym in my life - how important is it, how important should it be, etc. It changes the entrepreneurial vision, that's for sure!

I hate meetings!

Let me be more specific - I hate meetings or parts of meetings which are useless. Which, unfortunately for the way business is conducted in America, is most of them.

I had meetings last night from 5:00 PM to 8:15 or so. The quality, necessary content probably could have been done in 30 minutes. The rest was formatted and useless. Its not the fault of the "meeting callers," - its what they've done and what they'll continue to do. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Patrick Lencioni of the Table Group, previously mentioned in this blog in relation to his "Three Signs of a Miserable Job" book, has another great business book called, "Death By Meeting." In it, he asks the question, "Which would you rather attend - a movie or a business meeting?" Obviously, we know what answer he expects. The reason, he says, that we would rather go to a movie is that is has conflict, protagonists and antagonists, and an exciting conclusion. Meetings don't. They are uninspiring recitations of formulaic crap - usually.

PL says we need to create healthy conflict in meetings. How much more fun would my meeting become if one member said to another, "You know, Jack, I think you are wrong and here is why". Jack, knowing this person respects and admires him, accepts the comments and comes back with his viewpoint. There is conflict, yet the underlying respect and admiration make it healthy, not the emotional drama that some meetings turn into (see Lencioni's "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team" to learn about healthy and unhealthy teams).

How do you change meetings? I don't know or I would sure have tried it by now. I think I need to re-read "Death by Meeting" and institute what PL talks about in the back. Or else I will have a minor stroke if subjected to such a series of meetings in the future!

How do you relate to others? In other words, do you get energy from being alone, being with a small group of close friends, or being in the midst of a large group?

People who are energized by being at a party with a large number of people, many of whom they don't know, are people who can naturally engage potential customers. They can jump out at a stranger and engage them immediately. They have the ability to get their product or service in front on strangers without seeming forced or salesy.

That's not me.

I'm more in the group that needs a break after being with a large group. It is mentally, even physically taxing for me to be in a crowd. I need some decompression time to rest after an experience like that. It extends to meeting and greeting - I'm not good at it and when I try to do it, it is hard for me.

So when I'm at a business function where I'm to be pitching my business, it is challenging for me to present the benefits of my gym to people I know need it. I'm not a natural, and it isn't something I think can be learned or developed. I need to find situations where I'm more at home. I am more comfortable being an expert and speaking to, rather than interacting with, with a group. So meetings and seminars are a better marketing choice for me. Chamber After Hours are much less attractive, much more taxing, and much less successful for me.

How about you? How do you relate? Does it match your marketing strategy?

The results are in!

As I had mentioned a while ago, I posed the question "What is the most important quality for a leader?" on LinkedIn Questions. The survey is complete, with 37 responses. Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond. Some great answers. Some folks couldn't keep their answer to just one quality, while others' responses were too vague to categorize, so the numbers below don't add up to 37. I've tried to place the responses in larger categories if I could to group them a bit better. Here's the list with number of responses:

1.      Integrity - 5

2.      Visioncasting - 4

3.      Ability to listen - 4

4.      Development of Employees - 4

5.      Emotional Intelligence/Self Awareness - 3

6.      Ability to Delegate/Trust Employees - 2

7.      Intelligence - 2

8.      Passion - 2

9.      Resourceful - 1

10.  Thinks Outside the Box - 1

11.  Rational - 1

12.  Confronts Difficulty - 1

13.  Love - 1

I always like studies or surveys that agree with what I think (don't we all?), so I like this one. I've always considered integrity to be the cornerstone of leadership. As Tom Sherwin commented, "If your followers don't believe you, it doesn't matter what you say. If they see you behaving badly it won't matter what you ask them to do. If they do not hear you speak-up to those in power how are wrong, they will not respect you." Mark Taylor said, "I find it impossible to respect a leader without it and impossible not to respect a leader with it."

The number of people who referred to listening skills surprised me at first, but the more I thought of it, the more I realized that a great leader listens, while an average or poor one doesn't, and both have a tremendous effect on the team. Its the ability to listen, provide an outlet for expression for the members of the team, yet still "steer the ship" in the direction necessary that embodies a great leader. Everyone needs to have a say and felt listened to and respected, but be OK if their ideas aren't followed all the time.

I really liked a comment by Steven Smith. He said, "The ultimate leadership skill is learning how to be a better leader by following other situational leaders rather than presuming you are always the best equipped to lead." How excellent is that concept? One person is not always the best equipped for a certain situation. The true leader realizes who he needs to use for each situation, who has what skills required for particular items on the job, and gets that person to buy in by "Following from Above." Bill Hybels talks about "Leading from Below," how employees can help lead their superiors. Well, why not follow from above?

One of my favorite comments came in trying to distinguish leaders and managers. Bruce Carroll - "Many of the other qualities often associated with leaders are actually qualities of good managers. These include listening, planning, decision making, delegating, empowering -- the basic skills to get tasks accomplished through others. Most truly exceptional companies combine a visionary leader with a group of one or more exceptional managers."

Great stuff, folks! I really enjoyed the responses.

What should my next question be?

In the hopes of improving personally and professionally, Clay and I are reading a book called "The 7 Triggers to Yes". The idea behind the book is to refute the idea that, as Aristotle taught, logic and reasoning should convince anyone. Instead, author Russell Granger points to newer evidence that our emotions control the vast majority of our decisions. Our reasoning, higher level brain doesn't typically get involved in routine decisions.

So as "salesman," (or influencers, or leaders - we all fall into those categories, if not true salesmen), we need to identify the triggers that get peoples' emotional decision-making to go in our favor. The triggers he describes:

1. Friendship
2. Authority
3. Consistency
4. Reciprocity
5. Contrast
6. Reason Why
7. Hope

I've just finished the intro and the friendship trigger section. This one is what you might expect: liking the person trying to influence you is critical, how to identify with your "partner" (as Granger calls the person we're trying to influence) and make him identify with you, the use of mirroring in attitude and dress. Pretty standard sales stuff in this section. I'm anxious to hear about the rest, though.

I've always considered reason to be the key. If I construct a good enough argument, who could resist? Yet people do, time and time again. I'm hoping this gives me some insight I haven't gleaned before.