Ambiguity is, by definition, a lack of clarity.  In one of my earlier posts I discussed the importance of establishing clarity as an element of earning the commitment of employees to the goals and objectives of the business.   Without clarity people are not sure in which direction they are going, how they are going to get there, nor their role in getting there.  Consequently, they will not commit to supporting your goals and objectives. 

However, leaders often find themselves in situations which lack that kind of clarity.  How do they bring clarity to situations in which the information they are working with is ambiguous or incomplete?

First, leaders need to understand that they must be comfortable operating in an environment that is not always well defined; it goes with the territory of leading.   

Second, leaders need to accept the fact that the higher their level in an organization the more complex decisions become.  That complexity comes from a lack of information, conflicting information, or conflicting goals among those affected by the decisions to be made. 

Finally, leaders need to accept the fact that not all situations can be fully and immediately clarified, and that they may need to operate in a gray zone for some period of time.  They need to accept that coming to closure on an issue is NOT always the right thing to do.  Sometimes it is best to let a situation progress until more information becomes available.

Therein lays a big part of the problem for leaders.  The difficulty for leaders in ambiguous situations is that they often feel that a decision must be made, a conclusion must be reached, and that THEY must make THE right decision and come to closure NOW.  Often they find themselves frozen because of the complexity of arriving at the single right decision that satisfies everyone.  They need to keep in mind that often there is no single right decision.  The important piece is that people need DIRECTION from the leader, not necessarily THE SINGLE RIGHT DECISION.  

However, leaders must also be aware that it is more difficult for employees to exist in a gray zone than it is for the leader.  Therefore, they need to recognize that each step they take in leading their businesses through complex issues requires redefining and reestablishing clarity for their teams.  In complex and ambiguous situations, the leader should define the direction in which the organization will move, and make it clear that at each step along that path he/she will redefine and communicate the right next step as necessary to get to the desired goal. 

How do you do that?

• First, get clear on what information you will need to reach that final conclusion.  Be relentless about working toward and getting that information.
• Meanwhile, lay out the action plans for all the options you are considering.  Look for the overlaps in actions associated with any of those options, and take those actions while you accumulate more information.  That enables you to move the organization forward while keeping as many options open as possible.
• Make small decisions that move you toward a conclusion but which also keep as many of those options open as possible.
• Identify indicators which will confirm or refute your choice as being the right one, and monitor those indicators.
• Reassess, redefine and take the next step accordingly.
• At some point the final decision will become clear and you can move to closure.

Do not feel pressured to have THE all encompassing answer immediately.  Be mindful of the goal you are trying to reach, the general direction you must take to get there, and steps that will move you continuously in that direction.  Take one step at a time and reassess.  Determine the next step and communicate.

It is like navigating a ship in the fog.  First rule: slow down.  Second rule: make small moves so you have time to change them if they prove to be wrong, but keep moving in the direction you need to go.

Though I frequently talk about the importance of being inclusive as a leader, there are some aspects of being a leader that are better mandated.  Establishing the culture of your organization is one of those aspects.  Actually, that is not entirely true, but to a large degree it is.  First, let me address the NOT ENTIRELY TRUE  part since that is a shorter discussion. 

Establishing a culture does require involving the key leaders of your organization because the culture of the organization must be something that they also believe in.   Including them in determining those aspects earns their buy-in.  In addition, you must have an effective process to get to that point so that you do not develop a list of values for your organization that does not truly reflect the beliefs and values of your leadership team.  Okay…done with that part.

If you do not build a culture in your organization one will emerge anyway, and it will likely NOT be the one you want. 

However, the core of the culture of your organization must be yours as the leader.  There are some elements of that culture that must meet your own standards regardless of what anyone else thinks.  It is your obligation to yourself and it is your responsibility to your organization to spell out who you are and what you fundamentally require of everyone in your organization.  If the culture is not something that you TOTALLY buy into as THE leader, then you WILL NOT adequately lead that business, because IT WILL NOT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE IN.  Inevitably you will bend on those values at some point and your credibility, as well as that of your organization culture, will be damaged.

As a result, when you assume a leadership position you must be very clear on exactly what those minimums are for you…they are non-negotiable.  You must make them clear to everyone.  You must be unwilling to accept anything less than those non-negotiables.  Be very careful how you choose them. 

For me there is only one non-negotiable…Teamwork.  Anything that violates that principle and you’re gone.  Of course, there are many elements that make up that value to me.  They include:

• integrity
• honesty
• support for others
• taking personal responsibility
• respect for others

Understand, you do not need to be the CEO to build a culture.  If you manage a department you can, and should, build a culture for your department.  If you are a first-line supervisor you should do the same.  However, in any position other then the CEO you should be mindful to build your “departmental” culture within the context of the larger culture of the organization so that there is not a conflict between the two.  Your next question might be, what if the larger organization culture is not something I agree with?  If that is the case then you may need to have some discussions about the existing organization culture and how to change it, or you may need to find another organization in which you find a better fit with your own values.

Finally, one might say, why bother building a culture if it can be so fragile and cause such damage if it breaks?  The answer is that if you dont build a culture in your organization, one will emerge anyway.  Left to its own devises that culture will NOT be what you, as the leader, value and what you think will be the most effective to get you to your organization’s goals.  Your task will then become changing that culture, and that is more difficult than building one correctly in the first place.

What do you think? 

I think NOT!  I know many people who have zero charisma who are effective leaders.  I know people with charisma who are terrible leaders.  I know people who have charisma but led people down bad paths which were doomed to failure.

I have never heard a person say that charisma was the main skill they employed to successfully lead a company. 

Is charisma essential?  Absolutely not.  There are many leadership skills which can be learned…in fact, most.  If you look through all the literature on Leadership you will find that most of the books are listings of skills which have worked for someone at some point in time or some situation.  Any one of those skills can be learned or developed.  Can charisma help?  I guess so.  It really depends on what is meant by charisma?

Wikipedia describes it as ”a trait found in persons with a facile personality, characterized by personal charm and magnetism (attractiveness), along with innate and powerfully sophisticated abilities of interpersonal communication and persuasion. One who is charismatic is said to be capable of using their personal being, rather than just speech or logic alone, to interface with other human beings in a personal and direct manner, and effectively communicate an argument or concept to them.

Personally, I think charisma is one element of many that CAN make a person an effective leader.  However, charisma, without any other skills, will not make a person a successful leader.  I have never heard a person say that charisma was the main skill they employed to successfully lead a company.

I think charisma refers to an ability to connect with other people…to relate to them.  If that is true, then I also think that some of the fundamental elements of charisma can be learned.  Think about it.  What does it take to connect with other people?

• truly listening to what someone says (putting aside all other distractions and being totally engaged)
• respecting and valuing their opinion (requires being open-minded and perhaps puttings one’s own ego aside!)
• empathizing with what they are saying (caring? how often do we really do that, especially in a business situation?)
• responding in a supportive way (again, how often do we do that in a business situation?)
• doing what you say you will do (walking the talk…actions speaking louder than words)

Charisma is often described as hard to define.  I agree.  I am sure you do as well.  I would love to hear your thoughts about it.

Ever been burned by corporate politics?  This ought to arouse some emotional responses.

I fully expect that many of you have been burned by the politically astute and active people in your organization.  I certainly have.  However, in one case I had a front row seat for several years watching an absolute Master weave his web of deceit and manipulation.  It gave me the opportunity to see how he did it.  More importantly, it gave me the opportunity to see how he defended himself against the same games being played on him.

To block political moves raise the level of visibility of the subject being discussed.

First, let me say that not all politics are bad.  “Politics” really means an understanding of the dynamics between people and managing those dynamics to get to an outcome.  It is an essential part of relationships and doing business.  Where politics gets a bad name is when the agenda or outcome is self-serving and not necessarily in the interest of the organization or the greater good.  In those cases it is perhaps more accurately described as manipulation.  That’s what I am getting at here…the “bad politics”.

What I have observed as THE fundamental building block of political manipulation is the concept of “divide and conquer”.  By this I mean that the “political player” (I’ll call that person PP for the rest of this document since I will tire quickly of typing “the political player”) uses one-on-one meetings and discussions as the main approach for gathering information and manipulating the use of that information to achieve his/her desired goals.  Bear in mind, there are many types of one-on-one meetings that are not maniuplative…supervisor with employee for example.

Having studied this phenomenon, I have observed that PP does not take a position but uses the opinions of others, or the “apparent” opinions of others, to guide other listeners to a similar conclusion.  By doing so, PP takes no risk.  PP accumulates information, or manipulates information, to lead others to the conclusion PP wants.  As an example:

• PP will state such things as “I have heard this or that” or “what do you think of this or that?” as a way of getting a subject out on the table for discussion without taking a position.  The non-political player (NPP) responds with his/her own thoughts on the subject.  PP takes this information and uses it in whatever way suits them. 
  • If the NPP’s response helps PP build the case they want, they simply attribute that content to the NPP in further discussions.  Again, they have not taken a position…the NPP has.  PP can “put it out there” as someone else’s position to see how other people respond and what kind of support it gets.
  • If the NPP does not give an opinion, or if their opinion differs from what PP wants to hear, the PP will, in discussions with other people, refer only to the fact that they were talking with the NPP about the subject at hand.  PP will then state an opinion in such a manner that it has the appearance that it was the NPP’s opinion in order to “lead” the next listener to the same conclusion and build support for the conclusion PP wants.

The true Political Player will continue with these types of one-on-one discussions and systematically involve all the people critical to making a decision, leading them to a conclusion and getting their buy-in based on inferences and bits of truths that can be woven into a pattern that has the appearance of a groundswell of support.  If they are ever called on it, they can always defend themselves.  Nothing is in writing.  No discussions have any witnesses.  All the discussions DID take place.  At worst it can all be defended as a misunderstanding.  

So how do you deal with this? 

The first thing you have to do is recognize that it is happening.  This is where most non-political people get left behind.  They have no idea that it is actually happening…because it is not the way they think.  There are a few easy steps to follow:

First, keep an eye on people who tend to have a lot of one-on-one discussions with you.  Let that be a warning signal.  You can be sure that they are having similar discussions with others. 

Second, beware of anyone who prefaces their statements with disclaimers…I heard this…I heard that.  They are making sure to NOT take a position…but they want yours.  They are digging for information and opinions.

Third, beware of disconnected statements made about others such as, “I was talking to person X and we were talking about thus and so.”  Those are the kinds of comments that lead you to believe that person X actually said that or agreed to it, when in fact that may not be what happened at all.  PP did not actually SAY that person X said anything.  It is all inferred.  PP is trying to lead you to a certain conclusion…trying to get you to buy in to a position by inferring that this is what others believe…peer pressure.

So what do you do?

Simple.  To block political moves raise the level of visibility of the subject being discussed.  Get everyone involved you can think of who has a reason to be involved.  Raise the level of communication.  Call a meeting on the subject.  Send out a summary of some of the issues.  Speak to people in a group about the subject that is on the table.  Get it in a public forum.  By doing so it gets everyone talking to each other and the PP cannot manipulate what is being said or what is being attributed to whom.

I am not suggesting that you be paranoid…just be aware.

Finding the right person to fill a position is an issue for anyone who has to hire people.  All too often we are so anxious to fill job openings that we start changing our perspective of what is needed in the job to fit what a candidate has rather than matching the candidates skills and experiences with what we need.  Needless to say, the end result is a poor match between the individual and the requirements of the position.  That leads to the job not being done well and requires performance management to kick into gear, which we have already discussed as being one of the most poorly performed of management tasks.  It is better to take the time to select the right candidate.

This problem starts with a lack of clarity and confidence about what tasks must be performed in the job, and what skills it takes to perform those tasks.  First, recognize the vacancy as an opportunity to improve your business.  Do you really need to replace this position?  Can you change the description of the position to be more or something different than it was before?  Can you absorb the responsibilities of this position into those of another existing position and give that position a raise or promotion?

Never hire an individual if you have any doubt that they can meet every expectation you have of them.  If you do, you will be frustrated forever. 

The quickest way to get these answers is to flow chart the activity of your operation and clarify what is needed in the position.  By doing so you reassess the steps to deliver the product or service you provide, and you clarify the processes and activities to deliver them.  The result is a better idea about what is needed from each individual involved in the process, confidence about your need to fill the position, and clarity about what you need to fill it with.

The next problem stems from the belief that the “right person” for your position does not exist.  There are a couple of reasons why this doubt creeps into your mind.  You are uncertain that your expectations are realistic; you do not know how to define what you are looking for; or you do not know how to go about finding the “right person” for the job.  This uncertainty and lack of clarity is exascerbated by a sense of urgency to fill the position and handle the problems which occur everyday that the position remains unfilled.

If you have established clarity about what is needed in the position to support your processes, then the challenge becomes finding the person who has the skills to deliver on those needs.  First, this means identifying the skills needed to do the job.  If you do not know them yourself talk to people, interview the people who interact with that position, discuss the position with others in similar positions.  Clarify the skills needed. 

Next, create a set of interview questions which enable you to determine if your candidates have those skills.  Use probing open-ended questions in which the candidates can tell you what they have done which demonstrates their skills in those areas.  This is referred to as behavioral interviewing…interviewing in which you are probing for information about observable behaviors in the candidate.

Finally, take the time to select the right person who can do the whole job…don’t settle for whatever is available at the time.    It will be a source of endless frustration for you…and them.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen organization structures built around individual incompetence or inadequate processes.  It seems like people spend a lot of time looking for different ways to conduct their business to correct problems rather than going right to the source of the problem for resolution. 

Let’s take the first part of that statement…individual incompetence. 

Periodically, we find that an employee is not capable of doing the entire job the way we need it done.  They may not be a total disaster in the role, in fact, they may actually be good at some parts of the job, but they are consistently failing to meet all of the desired goals.   Now, for the sake of this example, let’s assume that we have managed their performance as per the post on “Managing Performance”, and we are still not seeing improvement in those key areas in which we need it.

Organization structure must be a function of process, not individual performance.  Would you build a soccer team with two goalies because one is not getting the job done?

In these situations a manager/supervisor will often decide that he/she needs to create another position and add a person to accomplish these functions.  Of course, what they are doing is hiring another person to pick up the slack in the area in which the incumbent is underperforming.  They are failing to address the core issue that the employee is not performing to expectations.  They seem to feel that they have set the wrong expectations.  They are starting a process of restructuring to split out responsibilties and assign them to other people.  They are starting to add positions into the structure to improve the performance on those desired tasks.  The effects are that:

• They are changing processes to fit an individuals capabilities.  Those processes may be very good just as they are.  By changing them you may be making them less efficient, thereby bringing down the productivity of ALL individuals who are part of that process. 
• They are changing structures to make up for an individuals inabilities.  They are adding positions and people to do the job that you expect the other individual to do. 

Both of these actions cost the organization money. 

Structure must be a function of process.  Determine the process needed to produce your product or service.  Identify the roles required to deliver at each step of the process.  Fill the roles with people capable of performing all the tasks.  Manage their performance.  Eliminate incompetence.

I often get asked, “How do you manage performance?”  It seems that this is an age-old quandry.  Leaders establish the expectation of high performance but are invariably awash with reasonable excuses as to why tasks are not completed as expected.  They want to demand high performance but at the same time be fair in their expectations.  The job does not get done to their satisfaction and the frustrations build.

There are several aspects to this question.  One is “How high is high enough for setting your expectations?” 

That’s easy.  Set your expectations of others at the same level as you set them for yourself.  Expect nothing less of anyone else than you demand of yourself.  If you do, then you will frequently find yourself frustrated with the performance of your team and you will not be as successful as you can be.  Do not assume that “being easy” on people will make them like you.  It will not.  They will see you as weak and will not respect you. 

Clarity is most frequently the problem.  I understand what I am asking for, but I do not get that across as clearly as I need to.

Another aspect of the performance question is “How do you handle the situation when you ask for one thing and get back something that is entirely different than what you wanted?” 

Over the years I have developed a simple three step approach to managing this type of performance issue.  This approach enables you to maintain a consistent drive for high performance, frees you of any concern about giving people a fair chance, and improves your skill at doing all you can to enable your people to perform at their best.

First, establish clarity.  Are they clear about what is expected of them?  Have you explained to them exactly what you want?  Have you been CLEAR?  This is most frequently the problem.  Clarity!!!  I understand what I am asking for, but I do not get that across as clearly as I need to.  This is not THEIR problem, it is YOUR problem…meaning a problem for BOTH of you.

The clarity problem exists both in the interpretation of the words used to describe the task, but also in the level of detail to which it is described.  The simple fix regarding clarity is to ask the individual to repeat back to you what you are asking for and to go into detail about what it is that you expect to see when they have finished.  This step may take some time, but you will be surprised how often you hear something back that is off target from what you thought you had said.  The problem is not that they are stupid.  It is that invariably we have a vision in our mind of what it is that we expect and it is so clear to us that we simply assume that it is to everyone else as well.  We do not go into adequate detail to explain it to them.  They, on the receiving end, are listening to what we are telling them and do not want to sound stupid or slow the process by asking a lot of questions.  They don’t, and they walk away unclear as to your expectations.

Second, ensure that they have the resources to do the job.  Once you have established clarity send the person back to do what it is you have asked of them.  If they return a second time with a substandard product, explore the following.  Do they have the resources to do the job?  Do they have the right training?  Do they have the right equipment and supplies?  Did they have enough time to do the job?  If not, correct those aspects of the situation and send them back to do it again.

Finally, if they still return with a substandard product then you can conclude that they are either unwilling or unable to do the job correctly.  Now you are free of the concern about being fair and you can act as appropriate to get the right person in the position.

Leaders often fall into the Imposter Trap when making decisions.  The Imposter Trap is one in which an individual brings about the exact failing they wish to avoid.  In the case of decision-making, leaders often feel that since they are the leader they must know everything and make all the decisions.  As a result of this kind of thinking they do not allow themselves the opportunity to ask all the questions that they should or gather all the necessary input from other people in making their decisions.  Naturally, if they did this, it would demonstrate to everyone else that they do not know everything and are therefore incompetent (a bit of sarcasm there).  Consequently, they do not accumulate all the information they need to make a particular decision and they make the wrong decision.  They cause themselves to fail and become incompetent…the exact thing that they sought to avoid.

The question becomes, how does one avoid this trap?  The answer is simple and involves a couple of steps.  First, never be too proud to ask questions.  I once had a boss, the Chairman and CEO of a Fortune 100 company, who asked questions all the time.  He never let anything go that he did not understand.  The first few times I heard some of his questions I thought, “Wow, I can’t believe he doesn’t know this.”  In a very short time I found that he never expected himself to know everything.  He never worried that people might think he was stupid or inexperienced.  He was expert at asking the right questions, getting all the information he needed, and then drawing the right conclusions.  The ultimate outcome was that people respected his decisions because they were well thought out.

The second aspect of this approach involves hiring well and surrounding yourself with people who are excellent at their jobs.  By hiring people who are better than you are at their job you can rely on getting the best input possible for making decisions and leading your business.  If you hire people that are less competent than you in their role, then you end up doing their job more often than they and you will not have the support you need to lead the business and make the right decisions.

The final step requires involving the right people in accumulating the information you need.  This changes from one decision to the next and, therefore, must be thought through each time.  Going back to our post on Inclusion, the simple approach to identifying those whose input you should seek requires simply asking yourself “Who has a stake in this decision….who is going to be effected by it?”  They are your constituents.

Remember, being the Leader does not mean that you have to know everything.  It simply means that you must employ effective processes that enable the organization to move in the direction in which you want to go.

Leaders, generally speaking, do not give enough credit to their employees.  They seem to forget what it was like as they moved up the ladder themselves.  They seem to forget how aware they were of the problems facing the business.  They seem to forget what it was like to be on the front lines and deal with the problems facing the business every day. 

Leaders also tend to believe that they are the first to recognize the symptoms of something being amiss in their organization.  They seem to think that the symptoms they are seeing about business performance have not yet become visible to the average person in the office. 

Leaders learn early to withhold information…sometimes due to confidentiality…sometimes to maintain power…and sometimes to manage the impact on employees…making it least disruptive to the business.  The great fallacy is that, in reality, it creates further distraction by creating a general sense of distrust. 

Finally, leaders also tend to think that there is alot of information which they should not share with employees.  In most cases this is because they feel that employees are not able to handle the information.  They feel that panic would ensue and employees will flee the sinking ship, or that some bad message would get out to the customer.  So they hide it, they gloss over it, and they talk around it.

The irony is that generally the leader is NOT the first to know about many of the problems in the business.  In fact, by the time the leader informs the general populace of these insights, the employees already know, and have known for some time.  In many cases they were the first to know.  During that time, in which the leader has chosen to NOT acknowledge the existence of the problem, he/she has been deemed by the employees to be unobservant or, worse, incompetent.

It once took me 2 years to earn the trust and commitment of the people at one facility of mine.  I remember the day I finally did.  I had just completed a quarterly Town Hall meeting.  In that meeting I reported on our progress toward key goals and pointed out that we were not achieving the goals.  It was not a pretty picture.  Most of the news that day was bad, and it was the first time I had had to report bad news to that team of people.  After the meeting the General Manager of that facility came up to me and said, “Today you earned their trust.”  I asked him, “Why today?”  He said, “Because you were up front with them about the bad news.  Your ability to recognize and speak about the bad news means to them that they can also believe you about the good news.  They already knew the things you spoke about.  Had you avoided the subject they would not have felt that you were not being forthright with them and they would have questioned the validity of the other news you had to report.”

Leaders learn early to withhold certain information from employees, customers, regulators, owners, etc.  It is learned under the guise of being a means of managing the impact on them and couching the dissemination of the information in such a way as to make it most palatable and least disruptive to the business.  It is meant to keep them from being distracted and to keep them focused on their goals and objectives.  And keeping focus is an important aspect of leadership. 

The great fallacy is that, in reality, withholding information serves to cause distraction because it creates a general sense of distrust among employees.  It IS a form of deception and people FEEL it that way.  They know what is really going on.  When you tell them something different they begin to lose trust in you and then they begin to wonder what else is being “sugar-coated”.  They then start to spend more time trying to figure out what is really going on rather than on doing their work. 

Moral of the story…be straight with your employees.  They know more than you think, and they can handle ALOT more.  Spend your time being up front about the issues your organization faces and the plans to address them.  This will serve to maintain trust and also enlist their support.

As we discussed in our last post, leaders cannot achieve their business goals without the commitment of their constituents. This commitment is essential because, in fact, it is those constituents that actually achieve the goals, not the leader. The leader may set the target, but the constituents make it happen. The leader enables teams of people to work effectively together to achieve those goals. The Pharaohs of Egypt did not build the great pyramids. They said what they wanted done but it was the effort of many constituent groups that got it done. The US President Kennedy did not put a man on the moon. He set the target but it was the effort of many constituent groups that got it done.

So, who are these constituents whose commitment leaders must earn? Very simply, they are any group of people who have a stake in what you are doing. They are the people who will be affected by the direction in which you, as the leader, are taking them. They are the people who will contribute to getting there. They are the people who will be asked to give something to the effort of achieving those goals, and who will also be likely to gain something by achieving them. Equally important, and frequently not considered, is that any one of those groups of constituents has the power to derail the effort if they so choose. So, managing their commitment is essential to success.

The most obvious group of constituents is Employees. Through most of your career Employees will be the group of constituents to whom you will pay the most attention. They produce the products and services you sell. They are the group you will see and interact with the most.

An equally important and obvious group of constituents is Customers. They buy the products or services you sell. In any function, at any level, we all have customers. This includes internal customers as well as external. At any level we all have a boss. That boss is a customer. That boss is paying us for performing a service as does any other customer.

Perhaps somewhat less obvious is the constituent group of Owners. Owners provide you the capital to operate your business. Certainly in a publicly traded company everyone has Owners because of the existence of Shareholders. Privately owned companies do not have shareholders but certainly have owners. An exception to this concept may exist in a privately owned company in which the CEO is also the sole Owner of all interests in the company. He/she may not have any Owners as constituents. That is a rare case that most of us will not have to worry about.

Another less obvious but very powerful constituent group is Regulators. This constituent group allows you to operate your business. Every business is regulated in some way if by nothing more than the local tax authority. What may also be true is that some leadership positions at very low levels may not have to deal with external regulatory authorities. However, there are also internal regulatory authorities that set the policies and guidelines by which the business operates.  All employees must operate in accordance with company policies and procedures and so are subject to the interests and concerns of their internal regulatory authorities.

Finally, the least obvious constituent group is the Community in which your business is operates. This constituent group gives you a place in which to conduct your business. Depending on the type of business you are in determines the extent to which you will interface with the community.

…any one of those groups of constituents has the power to derail the effort if they so choose. So, managing their commitment is essential to success.

Employees, Customers, Owners, Regulators and Community are the constituents whose commitment is so critically important to the success of your business. There are, of course, exceptions to each of these descriptions. More importantly, there are subcategories of each constituent group. For example, assume for the moment that you are the CEO of an organization. Your Employees, as a constituent group, means everyone from the Senior Management Team to the entry-level production worker just starting out his/her career. There are many different layers of people within that constituent group who have a different perspective and understanding of the business. Awareness of this distinction is important.

Understanding and meeting the needs of each of these constituent groups is essential to earning their commitment and achieving the goals and objectives of the business.  So, what are their needs?  That is a subject of a future post…stay tuned.