2015 2nd qtr lama final

The Lama Review - Page 1The Journal of the Laboratory Animal Management Asso ciation, 2009 Volume 22 › Issue 1The Journal of the Laboratory Animal Management Association, 2015 Volume 27 › Issue 2

In This Issue:

Managers & Leaders: Are They Different?Page 9

Extending the Long Term ViabilityPage 24

How You Make DecisionsPage 30

Failure the Impartial ExecutionerPage 33

Page 2 - The Lama Review

Shhh...We’re keeping this quiet...

Introducing the new X Series Double Sided Changing Station from Ancare.We could shout about the 10” knee-wells on BOTH sides

We could shout about the ULPA filtration, with 10 times the efficiecy of HEPAWe could shout about the Anti-Bacterial ISOCIDE Powder Coating

But at only 53 decibels in open-field conditions, if we spoke above a whisper you wouldn’t know it was on.

Beter Products. Better Science.

ancare.com800.645.6379 / 516.781.0755

P.O. Box 814, Bellmore, NY, 11710

The Lama Review - Page 3

Employment opportunity ads are FREE

Objec ves of the Laboratory Animal Management

Associa on

• To promote the dissemination of ideas, experiences, and knowledge

• To encourage continued education

• To act as spokesperson

• To actively assist in the training of managers

This publication contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifi cally authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, economic, scientifi c, moral, ethical, personnel, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C Section 107, this material is distributed without profi t to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar informa-tion for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

For more information concerning The LAMA Review, please contact the Editor in Chief, Jim Manke at the e-mail listed below.

Change of Address:Attention, Members. Are you moving? To ensure that you receive your next issue of The LAMA Review, please send your change of address to:

The LAMA ReviewJudy HansenLaboratory Animal Management Assn.Membership Manager15490 101st Ave N #100Maple Grove, MN 55369763-235-6484763-235-6461 (fax)[email protected]

LAMA Review advertising rates and information are available upon request via email, phone, or mail to: Jim Manke, CAE

Direct: 763-235-6482LAMA Review

15490 101st Ave N #100Maple Grove, MN 55369

[email protected]: 763-235-6461


EDITOR IN CHIEFReed A. George- Ashburn, VAJames D. Cox- Ashburn, VA

MANAGING EDITOREvelyn Howard

Lafayette, IN

EDITORIALADVISORY BOARD

Steve BakerCambridge, MA

Gail ThompsonWheatland, WY

Staff ContactsJim Manke, CAEExecutive Director

(763)235-6482

Kathi SchlieffMeeting Manager(763) 235-6483

Judy HansenMembership &

Development ManagerLAMA Review Coordinator

(763)235-6484

2014-2015 Executive Committee Offi cers

PRESIDENTWayne DeSantisWest Chester, PA

VICE PRESIDENTRoxanne FoxSarasota, FL

VICE PRESIDENT ELECTLeah Curtin

Framingham, MA

PAST-PRESIDENTPam StraeterPrinceton, NJ

SECRETARY/TREASURERHoward MosherKillingworth, CT

Directors at LargeKelly Patterson-Montclair, NJ

Leah Curtin - Framingham, MASteve Baker - Cambridge, MA

Jefferson Childs- Cincinnati, OHEd Russo- Worcester, MA

ATA RepTeresa Woodger - Montreal, QE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORJim Manke, CAEMaple Grove, MN

2014-2015 LAMA Review Editorial Staff

Volume 27, No.2

In This Issue:

T H E L A M A

Page 13 Allentown Page 13 Allentown Across from TOC Purina Lab Diet Across from TOC Purina Lab Diet Page 22 Vet Equip Page 22 Vet Equip Page 2 Ancare Page 2 Ancare Page 7 Pharmacal Page 7 Pharmacal

Advertiser Listing

7

920

24

30

4133

President’s Message

Managers & Leaders Are They Different?

Change Management

Extending the Long Term Viability

How You Make Decisions Is As Important As What You Decide

Building the Strong Organization

32 Why Real Leaders Pump Gas

Failure the Impartial Executioner


Brittany Vester Boler, PhDAnimal Nutrition Technical Services Consultant – Purina Animal Nutrition

As a LabDiet® Nutritionist, I assist researchers in formulating

I also help maintain the LabDiet® products to ensure we are

providing a consistent product based on Constant Nutrition®

®


Did you know?In the Laboratory Animal community, publishing in professional journal is an essential part of advancing your career. Submitting an article to the LAMA Review provides an opportunity to be published in a profes-sional journal. This is a great opportunity to share your research knowledge and accomplishments.

Imagine your journal impacting and infl uencing the laboratory animal management practices!The LAMA Review provides important information on industry’s advancements and developments to those involved in the Laboratory Animal fi eld with emphasis in management. The LAMA Review is published electronically each quarter and combines short columns with longer feature articles. Each issue focuses on signifi cant topics and relevant interest to ensure a well-rounded coverage on laboratory management matters.

Submitting an articleChoose an interesting topic that has the potential to benefi t the Laboratory Animal Management com-munity. Write the article that you would like to see published in the journal. Be sure to include multiple sources to support your research and accurately cite references. Submit your article to Review via email [email protected]

Benefits of publishingThe LAMA Review is the offi cial journal of the Laboratory Animal Management Association, which is committed to publishing high quality, independently peer-reviewed research and review material. The LAMA Review publishes ideas and concepts in an innovative format to provide premium informa-tion for laboratory Animal Management in the public and private sectors which include government agencies.

A key strength of the LAMA Review is its relationship with the Laboratory Animal management com-munity. By working closely with our members, listening to what they say, and always placing emphasis on quality. The Review is fi nding innovative solutions to management’s needs, by providing the neces-sary resources and tools for managers to succeed.

Article GuidelinesSubmissions of articles are accepted from LAMA members, professional managers, and administrators of laboratory animal care and use. Submissions should generally range between 2,000 and 5,000. All submissions are subject to Submissions are accepted for the following features of the LAMA Review:

o Original Articleso Review Articleso Job Tipso Manager’s Forumo Problem Solving


President’s Message- by Wayne Desantis

Hello (Again) Lama Membership,

I hope the beginning of everyone’s summer is going as planned, graduations, pic-nics, weekends at the shore or lake and of course dreaming of next year’s LAMA meeting, smile!

To keep everyone up to date, I am pleased to say that we have stayed on course to bring you the best possible value for your membership. The work started by the

Education committee with the boot camp has continued, has been well received and well attended. Our mission to foster continuing career as well as personal growth is on track by way of the scholarships we offer. We have received a lot of help recently be-cause of volunteers to all of our committees and for that we thank you. Overall the orga-nization is strong and focused as we strive to keep up with (and exceed) expectations. In short LAMA is an organization committed to serving your needs so please continue to let us know what you need.

As the sitting president of this fantastic organization I take my role and responsibilities very seriously. As I see it, staying true to the core mission, specifically “LAMA, is an association dedicated to advancing the quality of management and care of laboratory animals throughout the world” is what I am entrusted to do. With your help, dedication and focus we will grow well into the future.


-Jim Manke- EditorFrom The Editor’s Cube.....

I am very pleased to announce that we have new co-editors for the LAMA Review! James Cox and Reed George, both with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, will start work with the next (fall) edition.

Reed A. George, Senior Director of Scientifi c Services, Janelia Research Campus, directs Janelia's shared resource laboratories, including microscopy, model organism, and biological resource facilities. He is also responsible for operational leadership for Janelia's team projects. George says Janelia's cross-disciplinary approach to science's important questions brought him to Virginia from Berkeley, CA, where he was a senior program manager for the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project, running the project's DNA-sequencing operations and its technology development group.

James D. Cox, Shared Resource Director of Animal Services, Janelia Re-search Campus, is responsible for ensuring the use of animals in research at Janelia complies with best practices and applicable laws and regulations, and enables the very best science. In addition to his direct responsibilities for the Vivarium and IACUC, Cox oversees the Drosophila and Media shared re-sources. Cox served as the IACUC chair for nine years and remains a mem-ber of both the IACUC and IBC.

Reed and Jim share the vision of providing the very best in care for laboratory animals and employing sound management approaches for animal facilities, thereby supporting the best science. Their goal is to maximize the knowledge gained from each and every experiment, supporting the goals of refi nement and reduction in laboratory animal science. They hope to bring new ideas from the broader fi elds of leadership and management to improve the labora-tory animal industry overall.

Welcome aboard Reed and Jim – now excuse me while I pack my things and leave the Editor’s Cube! JIM


Managers & LeadersManagers & Leaders

Can Organizations Develop Leaders?

Zaleznik suggests two ways to develop leaders. First, avoid overreliance on peer-learning situations, e.g., task forces. They stifl e the aggressiveness and initiative that fuel leadership.

Second, cultivate one-to-one relationships between mentors and apprentices; e.g., a CEO chooses a talented novice as his special assistant. These close

working relationships encourage intense emotional interchange, tolerance of competitive impulses, and eagerness to challenge ideas—essential characteristics of leadership.

the ideal way to develop leadership? Every society provides its own answer to this question, and each, in groping for answers, defi nes its deepest concerns about the purposes, distributions, and uses of power. Business has contributed its answer to the leadership question

Are They Different?


Idea in BriefTough, persistent; smart, analytical; tolerant, and of good will—all qualities you want in your best managers. How else can they perform their jobs: solving problems and directing people and affairs? But let’s face it: It takes neither genius nor heroism to be a manager. Even highly valued managers don’t infl ame employees’ passions and imagination. Nor do they stimulate the change that all organizations require. For those qualities, you need leaders, not managers.

In this 1977 groundbreaking article, Abraham Zaleznik challenged the traditional view of management. That view, he argued, omits essential leadership elements of inspiration, vision, and human passion—which drive corporate success.

Managers and leaders are two different animals. Leaders , like artists, tolerate chaos and lack of structure. They keep answers in suspense, preventing premature closure on important issues. Managers seek order, control, and rapid resolution of problems.

Companies need both managers and leaders to excel. But too often, they don’t create the right environment for Leaders to flourish. Zaleznik offers a solution.

by evolving a new breed called the manager. Simultaneously, business has established a new power ethic that favors collective over individual leadership, the cult of the group over that of personality. While ensuring the competence, control, and the balance of power among groups with the potential for rivalry, managerial leadership unfortunately does not necessarily ensure imagination, creativity, or ethical behavior in guiding the destinies of corporate enterprises.

Leadership inevitably requires using power to infl uence the thoughts and actions of other people. Power in the hands of an individual entails human risks: fi rst, the risk of equating power with the ability to get immediate results; second, the risk of ignoring the many different ways people can legitimately accumulate power; and third, the risk of losing self-control

in the desire for power. The need to hedge these risks accounts in part for the development of collective leadership and the managerial ethic. Consequently, an inherent conservatism dominates the culture of large organizations. In The Second American Revolution , John D. Rockefeller III describes the conservatism of organizations: “An organization is a system, with a logic of its own, and all the weight of tradition and inertia. The deck is stacked in favor of the tried and proven way of doing things and against the taking of risks and striking out in new directions.”1

Out of this conservatism and inertia, organizations provide succession to power through the development of managers rather than individual leaders. Ironically, this ethic fosters a bureaucratic culture in business, supposedly the last bastion protecting us from the encroachments and controls of bureaucracy in government and education.Manager vs. Leader Personality

A managerial culture emphasizes rationality and control. Whether his or her energies are directed toward goals, resources, organization structures, or people, a manager is a problem solver. The manager asks: “What problems have to be solved, and what are the best ways to achieve results so that people will continue to contribute to this organization?” From this perspective, leadership is simply a practical effort to direct affairs; and to fulfi ll his or her task, a manager requires that many people operate effi ciently at different levels of status and responsibility. It takes neither genius nor heroism to be a manager, but rather persistence, tough-mindedness, hard work, intelligence, analytical ability, and perhaps most important, tolerance and goodwill.

Another conception of leadership, however, attaches almost mystical beliefs to what a leader is and assumes that only great people are worthy of the drama of power and politics. Here leadership is a psychodrama in which a brilliant, lonely person must gain control of himself or herself as a precondition


Managers LeadersAttitudes toward goals

Take an impersonal, passive outlook

Take a personal, active outlook. Shape rather than respond to ideas. Alter moods, evoke images, expectations

Goals arise out of necessities, not desires

Change how people think about what‛s desirable and possible. Set company direction.

Conceptionsof work

Negotiate and coerce. Balanceopposing views.

Develop fresh approaches toproblems.

Design compromises. Limitchoices.

Increase options. Turn ideas into exciting images.

Avoid risk. Seek risk when opportunities appear promising.

Relationswith others

Prefer working with people, butmaintain minimal emotionalinvolvement. Lack empathy.

Attracted to ideas. Relate to others directly, intuitively, empathetically.

Focus on process, e.g., how decisions are made rather than what decisions to make.

Focus on substance of events and decisions, including their meaning for participants.

Communicate by sending ambiguous signals. Subordinates perceive them as inscrutable, detached, manipulative. Organization accumulates bureaucracy and political intrigue.

Subordinates describe them with emotionally rich adjectives; e.g., “love,” “hate.” Relations appear turbulent, intense, disorganized. Yet motivation intensifi es, and unanticipated outcomes proliferate.

Sense of self Comes from perpetuating and strengthening existing institutions.

Feel part of the organization.

Comes from struggles to profoundly alter human and economic relationships.

Feel separate from the organization.

Idea in Practice


for controlling others. Such an expectation of leadership contrasts sharply with the mundane, practical, and yet important conception that leadership is really managing work that other people do.

Two questions come to mind. Is this leadership mystique merely a holdover from our childhood—from a sense of dependency and a longing for good and heroic parents? Or is it true that no matter how competent managers are, their leadership stagnates because of their limitations in visualizing purposes and generating value in work? Driven by narrow purposes, without an imaginative capacity and the ability to communicate, do managers then perpetuate group confl icts instead of reforming them into broader desires and goals?

If indeed problems demand greatness, then judging by past performance, the selection and development of leaders leave a great deal to chance. There are no known ways to train “great” leaders. Further, beyond what we leave to chance, there is a deeper issue in the relationship between the need for competent managers and the longing for great leaders.

What it takes to ensure a supply of people who will assume practical responsibility may inhibit the development of great leaders. On the other hand, the presence of great leaders may undermine the development of managers who typically become very anxious in the relative disorder that leaders seem to generate. It is easy enough to dismiss the dilemma of training managers, though we may need new leaders or leaders at the expense of managers, by saying that the need is for people who can be both. But just as a managerial culture differs from the entrepreneurial culture that develops when leaders appear in organizations, managers and leaders are very different kinds of people. They differ in motivation, personal history, and in how they think and act.

Attitudes Toward Goals

Managers tend to adopt impersonal, if not passive, attitudes toward goals. Managerial goals arise out of necessities rather than desires and, therefore, are deeply embedded in their organization’s history and culture.

Frederic G. Donner, chairman and chief executive offi cer of General Motors from 1958 to 1967, expressed this kind of attitude toward goals in defi ning GM’s position on product development: “To meet the challenge of the marketplace, we must recognize changes in customer needs and desires far enough ahead to have the right products in the right places at the right time and in the

right quantity.

“We must balance trends in preference against the many compromises that are necessary to make a fi nal product that is both reliable and good looking, that performs well and that sells at a competitive price in the necessary volume. We must design not just the cars we would like to build but, more important, the cars that our customers want to buy.”2

Nowhere in this statement is there a notion that consumer tastes and preferences arise in part as a result of what manufacturers do. In reality, through product design, advertising, and promotion, consumers learn to like what they then say they need. Few would argue that people who enjoy taking snapshots need a camera that also develops pictures. But in response to a need for novelty, convenience, and a shorter interval between acting (snapping the picture) and gaining pleasure (seeing the shot), the Polaroid camera succeeded in the marketplace. It is inconceivable that Edwin Land responded to impressions of consumer need. Instead, he translated a technology (polarization of light) into a product, which proliferated and stimulated consumers’ desires.

The example of Polaroid and Land suggests how leaders think about goals. They are active instead of reactive, shaping ideas instead of responding to them. Leaders adopt a personal and active attitude toward goals. The infl uence a leader exerts in altering moods, evoking images and expectations, and in establishing specifi c desires and objectives determines the direction a business takes. The net result of this infl uence changes the way people think about what is desirable, possible, and necessary.

Conceptions of Work

Managers tend to view work as an enabling process involving some combination of people and ideas interacting to establish strategies and make decisions. They help the process along by calculating the interests in opposition, planning when controversial issues should surface, and reducing tensions. In this enabling process, managers’ tactics appear fl exible: on one hand, they negotiate and bargain; on the other, they use rewards, punishments,and other forms of coercion.

Alfred P. Sloan’s actions at General Motors illustrate how this process works in situations of confl ict. The time was the early 1920s when Ford Motor Company still dominated the automobile industry using, as did General Motors, the conventional water-cooled engine.


The Easy IVC Just Got Easier.

Blower Control PLUS Remote IVC Monitoring.All in the Palm of Your Hand.

2FL-RM7

2FL-RM7-M4

ROOM SCAN

Multiple Blower Control | IVC Conditions Monitoring | Email/Text Alarm NotificationsData Collection & Reporting | iPad & Tablet Compatible

Free Webinar at AllentownInc.com/Plus

EasyThe

IVCTM


With the full backing of Pierre du Pont, Charles Kettering dedicated himself to the design of an aircooled copper engine, which, if successful, would be a great technical and marketing coup for GM. Kettering believed in his product, but the manufacturing division heads opposed the new design on two grounds: fi rst, it was technically unreliable, and second, the corporation was putting all its eggs in one basket by investing in a new product instead of attending to the current marketing situation.

In the summer of 1923, after a series of false starts and after its decision to recall the copper engine Chevrolets from dealers and customers, GM management scrapped the project. When it dawned on Kettering that the company had rejected the engine, he was deeply discouraged and wrote to Sloan that, without the “organized resistance” against the project, it would have succeeded and that, unless the project were saved, he would leave the company. Alfred Sloan was all too aware that Kettering was unhappy and indeed intended to leave General Motors. Sloan was also aware that, while the manufacturing divisions strongly opposed the new engine, Pierre du Pont supported Kettering.

Further, Sloan had himself gone on record in a letter to Kettering less than two years earlier expressing full confi dence in him. The problem Sloan had was how to make his decision stick, keep Kettering in the organization (he was much too valuable to lose), avoid alienating du Pont, and encourage the division heads to continue developing product lines using conventional water-cooled engines.

Sloan’s actions in the face of this confl ict reveal much about how managers work. First, he tried to reassure Kettering by presenting the problem in a very ambiguous fashion, suggesting that he and the executive committee

sided with Kettering, but that it would not be practical to force the divisions to do what they were opposed to. He presented the problem as being a question of the people, not the product. Second, he proposed to reorganize around the problem by consolidating all functions in a new division that would be responsible for the design, production, and marketing of the new engine. This solution appeared as ambiguous as his efforts to placate Kettering. Sloan wrote: “My plan was to create an independent pilot operation under the sole jurisdiction of Mr. Kettering, a kind of copper-cooled car division. Mr. Kettering would designate his own chief engineer and his production staff to solve the technical problems of manufacture.” 3

Sloan did not discuss the practical value of this solution, which included saddling an inventor with management responsibility, but in effect, he used this plan to limit his confl ict with Pierre du Pont.

Essentially, the managerial solution that Sloan arranged limited the options available to others. The structural solution narrowed choices, even limiting emotional reactions to the point where the key people could do nothing but go along. It allowed Sloan to say in his memorandum to du Pont, “We have discussed the matter with Mr. Kettering at some length this morning, and he agrees with us absolutely on every point we made. He appears to receive the suggestion enthusiastically and has every confi dence that it can be put across along these lines.”4

Sloan placated people who opposed his views by developing a structural solution that appeared to give something but in reality only limited options. He could then authorize the car division’s general manager, with whom he basically agreed, to move quickly in designing


water-cooled cars for the immediate market demand.

Years later, Sloan wrote, evidently with tongue in cheek, “The copper-cooled car never came up again in a big way. It just died out; I don’t know why.” 5

To get people to accept solutions to problems, managers continually need to coordinate and balance opposing views. Interestingly enough, this type of work has much in common with what diplomats and mediators do, with Henry Kissinger apparently an outstanding practitioner. managers aim to shift balances of power toward solutions acceptable as compromises among confl icting values.

Leaders work in the opposite direction. Where managers act to limit choices, leaders develop fresh approaches to long-standing problems and open issues to new options. To be effective, leaders must project their ideas onto images that excite people and only then develop choices that give those images substance.

John F. Kennedy’s brief presidency shows both the strengths and weaknesses connected with the excitement leaders generate in their work. In his inaugural address he said, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

This much-quoted statement forced people to react beyond immediate concerns and to identify with Kennedy and with important shared ideals. On closer scrutiny, however, the statement is absurd because it promises a position, which, if adopted, as in the Vietnam War, could produce disastrous results. Yet unless expectations are aroused and mobilized, with all the dangers of frustration inherent in heightened desire, new thinking and new choice can never come to light.

Leaders work from high-risk positions; indeed, they are often temperamentally disposed to seek out risk and danger, especially where the chance of opportunity and reward appears promising. From my observations, the reason one individual seeks risks while another approaches problems conservatively depends more on his or her personality and less on conscious choice. For those who become managers, a survival instinct dominates the need for risk, and with that instinct comes an ability to tolerate mundane, practical work. Leaders sometimes react to mundane work as to an affl iction.

Relations with Others

Managers prefer to work with people; they avoid solitary activity because it makes them anxious. Several years ago, I directed studies on the psychological aspects of careers. The need to seek out others with whom to work and collaborate seemed to stand out as an important characteristic of managers. When asked, for example, to write imaginative stories in response to a picture showing a single fi gure (a boy contemplating a violin or a man silhouetted in a state of refl ection), managers populated their stories with people. The following is an example of a manager’s imaginative story about the young boy contemplating a violin:“Mom and Dad insisted that their son take music lessons so that someday he can become a concert musician. His instrument was ordered and had just arrived. The boy is weighing the alternatives of playing football with the other kids or playing with the squeak box. He can’t understand how his parents could think a violin is better than a touchdown. “After four months of practicing the violin, the boy has had more than enough, Dad is going out of his mind, and Mom is willing to give in reluctantly to their wishes. Football season is now over, but a good third baseman will take the fi eld next spring.”

This story illustrates two themes that clarify managerial attitudes toward human relations. The fi rst, as I have suggested, is to seek out activity with other people (that is, the football team), and the second is to maintain a low level of emotional involvement in those relationships. Low emotional involvement appears in the writer’s use of conventional metaphors, even clichés, and in the depiction of the ready transformation of potential confl ict into harmonious decisions. In this case, the boy, Mom, and Dad agree to give up the violin for sports.

These two themes may seem paradoxical, but their coexistence supports what a manager does, including reconciling differences, seeking compromises, and establishing a balance of power. The story further demonstrates that managers may lack empathy, or the capacity to sense intuitively the thoughts and feelings of others. Consider another story written to the same stimulus picture by someone thought of as a leader by his peers:

“This little boy has the appearance of being a sincere artist, one who is deeply affected by the violin, and has an intense desire to master the instrument.

“He seems to have just completed his normal practice session and appears to be somewhat crestfallen at his inability to produce the sounds that he is sure lie within the violin.


“He appears to be in the process of making a vow to himself to expend the necessary time and effort to play this instrument until he satisfi es himself that he is able to bring forth the qualities of music that he feels within himself.

“With this type of determination and carry through, this boy became one of the great violinistsof his day.”

Empathy is not simply a matter of paying attention to other people. It is also the capacity to take in emotional signals and make them meaningful in a relationship. People who describe another person as “deeply affected,” with “intense desire,” “crestfallen,” and as one who can “vow to himself” would seem to have an inner perceptiveness that they can use in their relationships with others. Managers relate to people according to the role they play in a sequence of events or in a decision-making process, while leaders, who are concerned with ideas, relate in more intuitive and empathetic ways. The distinction is simply between a manager’s attention tohow things get done and a leader’s to what the events and decisions mean to participants.

In recent years, managers have adopted from game theory the notion that decisionmaking events can be one of two types: the win-lose situation (or zero-sum game) or the win-win situation in which everybody in the action comes out ahead. Managers strive to convert win-lose into win-win situations as part of the process of reconciling differences among people and maintaining balances of power.

As an illustration, take the decision of how to allocate capital resources among operating divisions in a large, decentralized organization. On the surface, the dollars available for distribution are limited at any given time. Presumably, therefore, the more one division gets, the less is available for other divisions.

Managers tend to view this situation (as it affects human relations) as a conversion issue: how to make what seems like a win-lose problem into a win-win problem. From that perspective, several solutions come to mind. First, the manager focuses others’ attention on procedure and not on substance. Here the players become engrossed in the bigger problem of how to make decisions, not what decisions to make. Once committed to the bigger problem, these people have to support the outcome since they were involved in formulating the decision- making rules. Because they believe in the rules they formulated, they will accept present losses,

believing that next time they will win.

Second, the manager communicates to subordinates indirectly, using “signals” instead of “messages.” A signal holds a number of implicit positions, while a message clearly states a position. Signals are inconclusive and subject to reinterpretation should people become upset and angry; messages involve the direct consequence that some people will indeed not like what they hear. The nature of messages heightens emotional response and makes managers anxious. With signals, the question of who wins and who loses often becomes obscured. Third, the manager plays for time. Managers seem to recognize that with the passage of time and the delay of major decisions, compromises emerge that take the sting out of winlose situations, and the original “game” will be superseded by additional situations. Compromises mean that one may win and lose simultaneously, depending on which of the games one evaluates.

There are undoubtedly many other tactical moves managers use to change human situations from win-lose to win-win. But the point is that such tactics focus on the decision-making process itself, and that process interests managers rather than leaders. Tactical interests involve costs as well as benefi ts; they make organizations fatter in bureaucratic and political intrigue and leaner in direct, hard activity and warm human relationships. Consequently, one often hears subordinates characterize managers as inscrutable, detached, and manipulative. These objectives arise from the subordinates’ perception that they are linked together in a process whose purpose is to maintain a controlled as well as rational and equitable structure.

In contrast, one often hears leaders referred to with adjectives rich in emotional content.

Leaders attract strong feelings of identity and difference or of love and hate. Human relations in leader-dominated structures often appear turbulent, intense, and at times even disorganized. Such an atmosphere intensifi es individual motivation and often produces unanticipated outcomes.

Senses of Self

In The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James describes two basic personality types, “once-born” and “twice-born.” People of the former personality type are those for whom adjustments to life have been straightforward and whose lives have been more or less a peaceful fl ow since birth. Twice-borns, on the other hand, have not had an easy time of it. Their lives are


marked by a continual struggle to attain some sense of order. Unlike once-borns, they cannot take things for granted. According to James, these personalities have equally different worldviews. For a once-born personality, the sense of self as a guide to conduct and attitude derives from a feeling of being at home and in harmony with one’s environment. For a twice-born, the sense of self derives from a feeling of profound separateness.

A sense of belonging or of being separate has a practical signifi cance for the kinds of investments managers and leaders make in their careers. Managers see themselves as conservators and regulators of an existing order of affairs with which they personally identify and from which they gain rewards. A manager’s sense of self-worth is enhanced by perpetuating and strengthening existing institutions: he or she is performing in a role that harmonizes with ideals of duty and responsibility. William James had this harmony in mind—this sense of self as fl owing easily to and from the outer world—in defi ning a once-born personality.

Leaders tend to be twice-born personalities, people who feel separate from their environment. They may work in organizations, but they never belong to them. Their sense of who they are does not depend on memberships, work roles, or other social indicators of identity.

And that perception of identity may form the theoretical basis for explaining why certain individuals seek opportunities for change. The methods to bring about change may be technological, political, or ideological, but the object is the same: to profoundly alter human, economic, and political relationships.

In considering the development of leadership, we have to examine two different courses of life history: (1) development through socialization, which prepares the individual to guide institutions and to maintain the existing balance of social relations; and (2) development through personal mastery, which impels an individual to struggle for psychological and social change. Society produces its managerial talent through the fi rst line of development; leaders emerge through the second.Development of Leadership

Every person’s development begins with family. Each person experiences the traumas associated with separating from his or her parents as well as the pain that follows such a wrench. In the same vein, all individuals face the diffi culties of achieving self-regulation and selfcontrol.But for some, perhaps a majority, the fortunes of childhood provide adequate gratifications and

suffi cient opportunities to fi nd substitutes for rewards no longer available. Such individuals, the “once-borns,” make moderate identifi cations with parents and fi nd a harmony between what they expect and what they are able to realize from life.

But suppose the pains of separation are amplifi ed by a combination of parental demands and individual needs to the degree that a sense of isolation, of being special, or of wariness disrupts the bonds that attach children to parents and other authority fi gures? Given a special aptitude under such conditions, the person becomes deeply involved in his or her inner world at the expense of interest in the outer world. For such a person, self-esteem no longer depends solely on positive attachments and real rewards. A form of self-reliance takes hold along with expectations of performance and achievement, and perhaps even the desire to do great works.

Such self-perceptions can come to nothing if the individual’s talents are negligible. Even with strong talents, there are no guarantees that achievement will follow, let alone that the end result will be for good rather than evil. Other factors enter into development as well. For one, leaders are like artists and other gifted people who often struggle with neuroses; their ability to function varies considerably even over the short run, and some potential leaders lose the struggle altogether. Also, beyond early childhood, the development patterns that affect managers and leaders involve the selective infl uence of particular people. Managerial personalities form moderate and widely distributed attachments. Leaders, on the other hand, establish, and also break off, intensive one-to one relationships.

It is a common observation that people with great talents are often indifferent students. No one, for example, could have predicted Einstein’s great achievements on the basis of his mediocre record in school. The reason for mediocrity is obviously not the absence of ability.

It may result, instead, from self-absorption and the inability to pay attention to the ordinary tasks at hand. The only sure way an individual can interrupt reverie-like preoccupation and self-absorption is to form a deep attachment to a great teacher or other person who understands and has the ability to communicate with the gifted individual.

Whether gifted individuals fi nd what they need in one-to-one relationships depends on the availability of teachers, possibly parental surrogates, whose strengths lie in cultivating talent. Fortunately, when generations meet and the self-selections occur, we learn more about how


to develop leaders and how talented people of different generations infl uence each other.

While apparently destined for mediocre careers, people who form important one-to-one apprenticeship relationships often are able to accelerate and intensify their development.

The psychological readiness of an individual to benefi t from such a relationship depends on some experience in life that forces that person to turn inward. Consider Dwight Eisenhower, whose early career in the army foreshadowed very little about his future development. During World War I, while some of his West Point classmates were already experiencing the war fi rsthand in France, Eisenhower felt “embedded in the monotony and unsought safety of the Zone of the Interior…that was intolerable punishment.” 6

Shortly after World War I, Eisenhower, then a young offi cer somewhat pessimistic about his career chances, asked for a transfer to Panama to work under General Fox Connor, a senior offi cer whom he admired. The army turned down his request. This setback was very much on Eisenhower’s mind when Ikey, his fi rst born son, succumbed to infl uenza. Through some sense of responsibility for its own, the army then transferred Eisenhower to Panama, where he took up his duties under General Connor with the shadow of his lost son very much upon him.

In a relationship with the kind of father he would have wanted to be, Eisenhower reverted to being the son he had lost. And in this highly charged situation, he began to learn from his teacher. General Connor offered, and Eisenhower gladly took, a magnifi cent tutorial on the military. The effects of this relationship on Eisenhower cannot be measured quantitatively, but in examining his career path from that point, one cannot overestimate its signifi cance.

As Eisenhower wrote later about Connor, “Life with General Connor was a sort of graduate school in military affairs and the humanities, leavened by a man who was experienced in his knowledge of men and their conduct. I can never adequately express my gratitude to this one gentleman.…In a lifetime of association with great and good men, he is the one more or less invisible fi gure to whom I owe an incalculable debt.”

Some time after his tour of duty with General Connor, Eisenhower’s breakthrough occurred. He received orders to attend the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, one of the most competitive

schools in the army. It was a coveted appointment, and Eisenhower took advantage of the opportunity. Unlike his performance in high school and West Point, his work at the Command School was excellent; he was graduated fi rst in his class.

Psychological biographies of gifted people repeatedly demonstrate the important part a teacher plays in developing an individual. Andrew Carnegie owed much to his senior, Thomas A. Scott. As head of the Western Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, Scott recognized talent and the desire to learn in the young telegrapher assigned to him. By giving Carnegie increasing responsibility and by providing him with the opportunity to learn through close personal observation, Scott added to Carnegie’s self-confi dence and sense of achievement. Because of his own personal strength and achievement, Scott did not fear Carnegie’s aggressiveness. Rather, he gave it full play in encouraging Carnegie’s initiative.

Great teachers take risks. They bet initially on talent they perceive in younger people. And they risk emotional involvement in working closely with their juniors. The risks do not always pay off, but the willingness to take them appears to be crucial in developing leaders.

Can Organizations Develop Leaders?

A myth about how people learn and develop that seems to have taken hold in American culturealso dominates thinking in business. The myth is that people learn best from their peers. supposedly, the threat of evaluation and even humiliation recedes in peer relations because of the tendency for mutual identifi cation and the social restraints on authoritarian behavior among equals. Peer training in organizations occurs in various forms. The use, for example, of task forces made up of peers from several interested occupational groups (sales, production, research, and fi nance) supposedly removes the restraints of authority on the individual’s willingness to assert and exchange ideas. As a result, so the theory goes, people interact more freely, listen more objectively to criticism and other points of view, and, fi nally, learn from this healthy interchange.

Another application of peer training exists in some large corporations, such as Philips N.V. in Holland, where organizational structure is built on the principle of joint responsibility of two peers, one representing the commercial end of the business and the other the technical. Formally, both hold equal responsibility for geographic operations or product groups, as the case may be. As a practical matter, it may turn out that one


or the other of the peers dominates the management. Nevertheless, the main interaction is between two or more equals.

The principal question I raise about such arrangements is whether they perpetuate the managerial orientation and preclude the formation of one-to-one relationships between senior people and potential leaders.

Aware of the possible stifl ing effects of peer relationships on aggressiveness and individual initiative, another company, much smaller than Philips, utilizes joint responsibility of peers for operating units, with one important difference. The chief executive of this company encourages competition and rivalry among peers, ultimately rewarding the one who comes out on top with increased responsibility. These hybrid arrangements produce some unintended consequences that can be disastrous. There is no easy way to limit rivalry. Instead, it permeates all levels of the operation and opens the way for the formation of cliques in an atmosphereof intrigue.

One large, integrated oil company has accepted the importance of developing leaders through the direct infl uence of senior on junior executives. The chairman and chief executive officer regularly selects one talented university graduate whom he appoints his special assistant, and with whom he will work closely for a year. At the end of the year, the junior executive becomes available for assignment to one of the operating divisions, where he or she will be assigned to a responsible post rather than a training position. This apprenticeship acquaints the junior executive fi rsthand with the use of power and with the important antidotes to the power disease called hubris —performance and integrity.

Working in one-to-one relationships, where there is a formal and recognized difference in the power of the players, takes a great deal of tolerance for emotional interchange. This interchange, inevitable in close working arrangements, probably accounts for the reluctance of many executives to become involved in such relationships. Fortune carried an interesting story on the departure of a key executive, John W. Hanley, from the top management of Procter & Gamble to the chief executive offi cer position at Monsanto. 8 According to this account, the chief executive and chairman of P&G passed over Hanley for appointment to the presidency, instead naming another executive vice president to this post.

The chairman evidently felt he could not work well with Hanley who, by his own acknowledgment, was aggressive, eager to experiment and change practices, and constantly challenged his superior. A chief executive offi cer naturally has the right to select people with whom he feels congenial. But I wonder whether a greater capacity on the part of senior offi cers to tolerate the competitive impulses and behavior of their subordinates might not be healthy for corporations. At least a greater tolerance for interchange would not favor the managerial team player at the expense of the individual who might become a leader. I am constantly surprised at the frequency with which chief executives feel threatened by open challenges to their ideas, as though the source of their authority, rather than their specifi c ideas, was at issue. In one case, a chief executive offi cer, who was troubled by the aggressiveness and sometimes outright rudeness of one of his talented vice presidents, use various indirect methods such as group meetings and hints from outside directors to avoid dealing with his subordinate. I advised the executive to deal head-on with what irritated him. I suggested that by direct, face-to-face confrontation, both he and his subordinate would learn to validate the distinction between the authority to be preserved and the issues to be debated.

The ability to confront is also the ability to tolerate aggressive interchange. And that skill not only has the net effect of stripping away the veils of ambiguity and signaling so characteristic of managerial cultures, but also it encourages the emotional relationships leaders need if they are to survive.

1. New York: Harper-Row, 1973, p. 72.2. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., My Years with General Motors (New York: Doubleday, 1964), p. 440.3. Ibid, p. 91.4. Ibid.5. Ibid, p. 93.6. Dwight D. Eisenhower, At Ease: Stories I Tell To Friends (New York: Doubleday, 1967), p. 136.7. Ibid, p. 187.8. “Jack Hanley Got There by Selling Harder,” Fortune , November 1976.

Reprint R0401GTo order, see the next pageor call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500or go to www.hbr.org


Change ManagementJeff SlatteryAzusa Pacifi c Online University

The ubiquitous nature of change seems to imply that change comes easily, but this is certainly not the case in most instances. The world of business and information technology requires frequent, and at times signifi cant, change initiatives. Successful change appears even more elusive, and thus, the following information strives to address the major factors that aid in change management. The paper describes the technical and human elements of change and includes components of change management that relate to the fi eld of information system management. The results provide guidelines and processes for successfully implementing change initiatives.

The level of global competition, corporate scandals, and continually changing governmental regulations and standards requires that firms of all sizes implement change initiatives in order to survive, remain competitive, and be in compliance with laws and standards. The changes range from minute to enterprise-wide and bring many challenges and benefits. Firms that embrace change and utilize it to their advantage receive a comparative advantage that increases their ability to compete and remain effi cient in the marketplace. Due to the critical nature of change, the following information describes the role of change management in organizations, discusses the key factors of change, the potential impact, leadership characteristics, common barriers to change, and offers guidelines to aid in the successful implementation of change initiatives.

Gans (2011) states that 80% of fi rms polled reported experiencing “some” confusion with the concept of change management and another 57% indicated that they “often” experienced confusion during the process of change. These statistics clearly indicate the necessity to implement a clear, consistent, and comprehensive change management strategy

(p. 48). Information technology projects are not devoid of change issues, as well. In fact, as Flynn, Pan, Keil, and Mahring (2009) state, IT projects at times “grossly exceed their planned budget and schedules, often by a factor of 2-3 fold or greater”; again these instances emphasize the need to focus on key initiatives and the process of change management (p. 131). The stakes are simply too high; fi rms must take change management seriously and dedicate the time and resources necessary to effectively implement the initiates. The very survival of a fi rm often depends on their ability to adapt and effectively change with the quickly adapting global business marketplace.

As stated prior, change in business remains a constant and continual process. Firms need to manage changes and, at times, seek to limit the degree of change while at the same time aggressively forging forward with changes, prioritizing becomes a key point.

Change creates a sense of uncertainty, stress, and anxiety for employees, which is often interpreted as resistance by change agents who are already aware of the change and the end results or ramifi cations. The change agents have spent countless hours developing, revising, and strategizing about how the change will improve business operations or advance the firm, but when the information is presented to frontline employees, they are often surprised and upset by the suggested or required changes. Balestracci (2003) states that fi rms and individuals in our technological age are “ expected to absorb in 10 years what used to be assimilated in two or three generations,” which creates untold stress and has been identified as “ corporate craziness” (p. 39). This same author goes on to cite the 85/15 rule: 85% of the problems in an organization derive from faulty process while only 15% or fewer are related to employees, and thus, management should take the stance to “ blame the process, not the person” (Balestracci, 2003, p. 40). For some fi rms this may be a major cultural shift,


but doing so decreases defensiveness, makes the actual problem the problem, and enables employees to unite against the problem in creating a solution. Depersonalizing the problem decreases the emotional reactivity to the situation, which allows for, and even encourages, change. Once the emotional reactivity has dissipated, the fi rm and employees are able to move into the change mode. The ability to respond appropriately requires fi ve essential skills:

1. Self-awareness2. Emotional maturity3. Self-motivation4. The ability to show empathy5. The ability to develop and maintain positive relationships (Balestracci, 2003 p. 42)

Displaying these skills and abilities makes the change process much easier and flow more smoothly, but there are leadership and corporate cultural characteristics and factors that are also essential for a success change process.

Bejestani (2011) states that, “management is partly science and partly art” (p. 302). The humanside or soft-skills account for a major element of change, even with regard to the technical aspects of change. IT systems or applications do not develop, install, and maintain themselves. People are at the center of change, and the successful implementation of change requires leadership and management acumen. Great leaders and managers are able to overcome resistance, unite employees, create a shared vision, and motivate employees or a team to implement change and accomplish tasks. Bejestani (2011) lists the following leadership characteristics:

Consistency—to build confidence in the people who work for you

Observation—to observe team members and their behaviors in a positive light

Problem solving—to make right decisions and solve problems, especially in critical-situations

Training friendly—to believe in the neces-sity of training and provide resources for

training

Humor—to build happiness without non-logical stress

Communication—to have face-to-face in-teractions

Responsibility—to be responsible for com-pleting objectives (p. 303)

In addition, Bluestone (2011) notes the diffi culties associated with change and states that leaders should work to create a culture where mistakes are allowed and discussed in a positive light, using the mistakes and failures as learning opportunity. Employees should not be afraid to report mistakes and failures. The corporate culture should encourage a sense of forgiveness and restoration; employees should not obsess on making the right and perfect decision at the expense of actually implementing a decision and experiencing an error or setback. Bluestone (2011) ends by stating that “cultural change is evolution, not revolution”; this speaks to the continual process of organizational change and change management (p. 21).

Gee and Gee (2011) continue with the same line of thinking by stating the fi rms should work to “ create a culture of change and innovation…which is one the best ways to build organizations that can respond to change in a positive and proactive manner” (p. 31). The actions and behaviors of managers account for up to 50% of how employees view a fi rm. Managers who encourage the following behaviors and attitudes are working to instill a culture of creativity, innovation, and change, which again provides a competitive advantage for their fi rm:

Encourage new and creative idea sharing

Promote diversity of thinking

Support confl icting or opposing points of view

Allow time for innovation and provide re-sources

Allow people the freedom to make decisions with parameters


Nurture risk taking as opposed to being risky (Gee & Gee, 2011, p. 31)

Similarly, fi rms that primarily operate from a top-down mentality are punitive, allow silos to exist, fail to communicate decisions, are overly controlling and fail to see the value of their employees, severely limit or hinder their ability to react quickly to market trends and implement creative and innovative change initiates. Although the soft-side of change requires extensive management and interaction, the technical aspects remain and are vital to the process.

Hayes (2010) notes that IT projects are vital for all fi rms but the role of many IT professionals has changed. IT managers and even frontline staff are not simply able to maintain and interact with IT systems; they are being required more and more to collaborate and negotiate with other functional areas of the business. Hayes (2010) goes on to state that, “the change from provisioning physical IT assets and virtual IT assets is changing the relationship between IT and business units inside and organization” (p. 54). IT professionals are being pushed to not only upgrade existing skills and competencies but to learn, acquire, and utilize a whole new set of skills beyond specifi c IT skills (Hayes, 2010).

Firms must move beyond utilizing standard management and IT-related change management software and applications, such as SWOT analysis or Balanced Scorecards (Barraso, 2011). Firms that embrace and utilize project management techniques in addition to the standard techniques in developing and designing change management systems and protocols will become much more effi cient and innovative in implementing changes that will serve to advance their fi rms. The time of being able to set back and rely upon prior successful change initiatives and practices has past. Firms must take advanced of their employees’ enthusiasm, creativity, and innovative spirit when diving into major change initiates. The results will be astonishing; successful, innovative, and creative change projects will become the norm as opposed to


the dreaded.

About the AuthorJeff Slattery, MA., DBA., is the discipline chair for management at Azusa Pacifi c OnlineUniversity. He can be reached for questions regarding this article at [email protected].

References Balestracci, D. (2003). Handling the human side of change. Quality Progress, 36(11), 38-45.

Barroso, B., H. (2011). The balanced scorecard: The evolution of the concept and its effects on change in organizational management. EBS Review, 28, 53-66.

Bejestani, H. (2011). Improving project change management using leadership spirit. iBusiness, 3,302-306.

Bluestone, A. (2003, July). Process of change: What it really takes. Practice Management Solutions, 21.

Flynn, D., Pan, G., Keil, M., & Mahring, M. (2009). De-escalating IT projects: The DMMmodel. Communications of the ACM, 52(10), 131-134.

Gans, K. (2011, October). Should you change your thinking about change management?Strategic Finance 48-50.

Gee, V., & Gee, S. (2011, October). Business improve creates a culture of change andinnovation. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 30-33.

Hayes, J. (2010, September 24). Virtual impacts. Engineering & Technology, 54-55.

JUST SAY “NO”By: Dr. Donald E. Wetmore

I used to put everyone else’s requests and needs fi rst and if there was any time left over at the end of the day for what I needed and wanted to do, that was acceptable. That is until I began to realize that if you and I are going to be effective time managers, we have to stay away from allocating our time solely on the basis of those who demand it. Instead, if you and I are going to be effective time managers, we have to allocate our time on the basis of those who deserve it.

I don’t mean this in any negative or arrogant way. It’s just you have limits to the amount of time you have to spend and so one of the most powerful words in your Time Management vocabulary is the word, “no.” Almost everyone you encounter will think they have a better idea about how you should be spending your time. It doesn’t make others bad. It’s just the way the world works. If there is a void in your Time Management life, someone, or many for that matter, will jump in to fi ll that spot. The problem is that they do not have the full understanding of where you are taking your life and if you keep saying “yes,” they will continue to take up your time, possibly keeping you from accomplishing what you really want to do.

“No” is sometimes diffi cult to say because you have

been taught differently. You have been taught to say, “yes,” to please, to serve, and to accommodate. There is nothing wrong with saying “yes” most of the time, but occasionally there is a line you choose not to cross, when saying “yes” is really not the best use of your time to get you to where you need and want to be. If you had unlimited amounts of time, you could “yes” all the time to everyone. But you don’t. You have 24 hours each day, 7 days a week for a total of 168 hours. And you get to spend that time only once, so you have to spend it wisely.

I have listed seventeen ways here to say “no.” Don’t let me put the words in your mouth. Take the ones you like, change them around and you use the words that are comfortable for you. The point is, if you are ever in a position when you can never say “no,” then you are always saying “yes,” and like the song says, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for everything.”

Try these:“I’m sorry. That’s not a priority for me right now.”

“I can’t help you on this now, but I can get to it next week. Would that be okay?”

“I have so much on my plate now I don’t know when I can get to it. But I do know someone over here who can help you now.”

(Continued on 29)


Extending the Long-Term Viability of Animal Facilities

Incorporate Cutting-Edge Air Control, Flexible Configurations, Durable Finishes Flexible room confi gurations, durable fi nishes and equipment, and highly sensitive airflow control and monitoring can extend the sustainable life of animal facilities and vivaria, where the research and biosecurity needs can change repeatedly over the course of several years. Detailed upfront planning and mockups of proposed spaces contribute to the long-term success and fl exibility of these facilities.

A retrofi t of vivarium space at Tulane University utilized a specialized airfl ow system to address pressure control issues. And a phased, 18-year vivarium expansion plan at the University of Iowa (UI) has progressed steadily without changes in the initial designs, thanks to a detailed master planning phase that looked at numerous space usage scenarios, HVAC and airfl ow systems,

and the room fi nishes. The UI design also addresses biosecurity issues. [See Project Team below.]

“The fact that the university has allowed me to allot funds upfront for sustainability and to design for fl exibility has paid off. Trying to save money upfront costs a lot more in the end,” says Dr. Paul Cooper, attending veterinarian at the UI, where he has worked for 37 years.

“The only thing being renovated in the space of the existing master plan is a cage wash facility built in 2002; it was designed for a smaller facility and is ineffi cient. It will be turned into staging for clean and dirty caging going to/from our new, central cage wash facility.”

Addressing Airfl ow Control Issues

Tulane University encountered a pressure control

An ongoing, 18-vivarium expansion at the University of Iowa makes use of numerous durable fi nishes to ensure long-term sustainability. These include stainless steel doorframes that won’t rust, MMA fl ooring, and sheet-welded vinyl walls (left) or glazed block with epoxy grout (right). (Photos courtesy of Rohrbach Associates PC Architects)


issue—caused by existing elevator shafts—during a vivarium retrofi t/renovation, but was able to fi x it by utilizing progressive offset control (POC) to help manage airfl ow.

“The pressure control in the space was being compromised due a plunger effect of the elevators. They also had issues with multiple ingress and egress locations on the floor,” says David Rausch, senior manager of channel marketing for Phoenix Controls.“Maintaining pressure during those situations was challenging. We used a unique strategy to help them out.”

Tulane’s project involved upgrading a circa 1970s vivarium at its School of Medicine. Existing elevator shafts pulled air from the corridor as the elevator went down, and pushed air into the corridor on the return trip, says Rausch. Combined with multiple ingress and egress points, this made it diffi cult to maintain directional airfl ow control and proper pressure. They addressed the issues with POC, which uses pressure sensors along with high-speed valves and specialized control algorithms to adjust the quantity of air in order to maintain directional airfl ow.

The volumetric offset (the difference between supply and exhaust airfl ow) is used to maintain the room differential pressure, explains Rausch. “As soon as a door opens, however, you begin to lose directional airfl ow. A room can quickly change direction and result in a loss of containment. With our system, as soon as a door contact switch is opened, it freezes the pressure control loop and allows for a fi xed alternate volumetric offset. The system can immediately return to the original volumetric offset once the door is closed. That guarantees a stable airfl ow control.

“It worked great for Tulane, and also is a huge advantage for high-air-change-rate spaces like clean rooms, high containment, and operating room spaces.”

Phoenix Controls manufactures the high-speed, pressure independent valves needed for POC, and custom confi gures each one based on the space needs. Phoenix’s digital control network guarantees a one-second response time hen the door switch is opened and signals a response, he adds.“ I f there’s too much time between measuring, adjusting, and confirming valve airfl ow, the directional airfl ow could be compromised. With our solution, when a

door is opened, our system can move to an alternate fi xed volumetric offset within one second.

“The supply and exhaust valves are tracking each other all the time and working together to maintain that offset. Most other systems don’t work together like that,” says Rausch.

“What’s important is maintaining pressure in normal conditions and insuring directional airfl ow during events as seen at Tulane.”

UI’s current under-construction facility, the Pappajohn Biomedical Discovery Building (PBDB), includes a 20,000-sf vivarium holding and support space, and a 35,000 sf shelled space for a future central vivarium. That facility uses a Phoenix Controls system combined with an Aircuity® air monitoring system to address airflow issues, says Gary Cooper, vice president of Alvine Engineering, who has spent 25 years helping design UI facilities.

Using high-end sensors in a fi xed location, the Aircuity system draws air out of each room and determines how clean it is, then sends a message to the Phoenix Controls system, which controls the airfl ow. Both systems have saved the university a signifi cant amount in energy costs, adds Gary Cooper.

The factory-calibrated controls make airfl ow and other environmental factors in each animal room easier to predict, so it will be easier to perform the annual re-certifi cations necessary for maintaining government funding, says Gary Cooper. The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) requires specifi c space, temperature, humidity, air pressure, air change rates, and lighting parameters.

The HVAC system for PBDB was designed with some redundancy, and has airfl ow capacity for 15 ACH, even though the current need is only 10 ACH. Multiple air handling units, exhaust fans, and heat recovery coils are headered together in common duct and piping systems to allow for redundancy


and easy maintenance. Equipment can be isolated to be serviced, so the whole system doesn’t need to go down, he explains. All of these factors increase the space’s fl exibility.

They also created an “airfl ow matrix” of the design and operational and recertifi cation data, says Gary Cooper. The matrix not only tells the contractor how to build the system, it tells engineers how to recertify and shows the university where expansion is possible.

“The components that are in the system have additional capacity; the matrix helps defi ne where that additional capacity will be. The matrix enables them to see how fl exible the space is—what it’s designed for and at what level it can operate.”

Moveable cage racks in PBDB’s design present airfl ow challenges, particularly maintaining uniform temperature, adds Gary Cooper. Ceiling devices blowing supply air control temperature and rely on an airfl ow pattern that’s uniform top to bottom.

“The challenge was to lay out the diffusers in a way that will address the cages being confi gured differently. If you put something on wheels, there’s nothing guaranteeing they’ll ever fi ll the room in the same way twice.”

For the exhaust system at PBDB, they installed 6-foot fl exible hoses from the ceiling, spaced so that they could be used in almost any cage confi guration. The hoses attach to the exhaust side of the cage racks, and funnel into the room’s exhaust duct and then into the building’s exhaust system.

Sustainability Through Design Details

The UI design team planned for a variety of space-effi cient scenarios when looking at animal spaces, says Dr. Paul Cooper, knowing researchers would have ever-changing, unpredictable needs.

In what Dr. Cooper calls a painstaking process, he and the project architect wrote down pen size regulations and rack sizes for various species. Then, using computer models, they designed holding rooms of various sizes that could accommodate the widest variety of possible confi gurations.

“It wasn’t a fun exercise. But we ultimately designed it so you can use the spaces for virtually any species. You may need to move in a different cage or pen, but the spaces do not need renovation of any type to change use.”

Dr. Cooper says he looked carefully at the quality of products used in the project, having been trained on their importance by his father, who was a fi nish carpenter. “We changed some things as we found better products over time, such as fl ooring, but for the most part the products we’ve chosen will last a long time. Do it once, and do it right.”

Small animal room walls are a welded sheet vinyl that’s impervious to moisture, doesn’t crack or chip, and can be repaired on site so the room doesn’t have to be closed. “We have rooms 30 years old where the product looks as good as it did when originallyinstalled,” says Dr. Cooper.

In large animal rooms, walls are glazed block with epoxy grout, because they offer better sound control. Neither fi nish relies on epoxy paint, so they won’t break down and are sustainable, he adds.

All animal rooms have stainless steel doorframes, because regular steel that’s painted will chip and rust after years of hosing down rooms. All fl ooring is Methyl methacrylate(MMA) because they’ve found it to be the most durable, says Dr. Cooper. And they put fl oor drains in every room, so they can be used for larger animals or aquatics, or in case of leaks, adds Gary Cooper of Alvine Engineering.

Noise issues were mitigated with strategic room placement and wall construction. “Where we specifi cally designed for large species, we put food storage rooms, cooler rooms, or labs as the last room on the corridor, so it’s a buffer. If we knew there would be lots of noise in an area, like cage wash, we addressed it with wall construction, such as double walls, or those buffer rooms.”

Heat welded Protect-All® sheet vinyl fl oor is used in the vivarium’s corridor system to lessen the impact of noisy carts, as well as in rooms for hooved animals. “It gives them better traction, because the fl oor has give to it, and it’s virtually indestructible,” explains Dr. Cooper.


“We’ve designed animal suites to be flexible and sustainable at the same time. Suites are all designed for multiple species, and we don’t have to take these rooms down to repair them.”

Effi cient Biosecurity Design

Careful design for biosecurity can address not only safety issues, but also cost concerns.

The new vivaria at UI will have several levels of biosecurity protection.Starting at the cage level, Thoren racks provide HEPA-fi ltered air to each individual cage. The only way contaminants can cross cages is through someone handling the mice, says Dr. Cooper.

The second biosecurity level comes through suite design. Each suite has an anteroom off the corridor to protect the animals, with a procedure room behind it. On either side of those rooms is an animal room (two total). Most of the research can be done inside the suites, eliminating the risk of going to a lab, or returning to non-barrier housing and a lower biosecurity level, says Dr. Cooper.

Secure doors at both ends of the suite access corridors offer a third security level. Special access is required, so the corridors can be kept clean and free of sound, says Dr. Cooper.

Separate interior corridors within the secure section ensure that animals are further isolated—there’s no

direct access into animal housing from a circulation corridor.A perimeter corridor provides the fourth level of biosecurity. Most of the travel between interconnected facilities and the cage wash/materials handling areas will occur here.

“One of the most important levels of biosecurity is by means of a central cage wash facility, where we will be autoclaving virtually every cage for every species in every facility for sterilization,” adds Dr. Cooper.

Two new imaging cores (small animal and human/large animal) are designed so that barrier and non-barrier animals can share the same equipment. The small animal imaging core is adjacent to the barrier rodent facility, but is designed so that non-barrier mice can come in through a tunnel connected to their housing area. Room equipment is sanitized before barrier animals access the same rooms. Again, animals don’t have to be stepped down into non-barrier housing status after imaging.

“This design allows us to maintain biosecurity, and we don’t have to duplicate $10 million worth of equipment to maintain the health status of the animals,” says Dr. Cooper.

The human and large animal imaging core has a dedicated elevator and corridor. Animals access the imaging rooms via their own door and corridor; human subjects access imaging from the opposite side.

To protect the animals, the University of Iowa’s vivarium expansion project is designed with several levels of biosecurity. Interior, secure corridors require special access to ensure that animals in barrier areas are protected from potential contamination (left). They are surrounded by non-barrier corridors (right), and no doors directly link barrier to non-barrier areas. (Photos courtesy of Rohrbach Associates PC Architects)


“This is another core facility that is going to have $70 million worth of equipment in it that we don’t have to duplicate,” notes Dr. Cooper.

The Human Factor

Even the most sophisticated biosecurity devices can’t account for the human factor; nevertheless, installing them is crucial to maintaining the integrity of animals that can cost up to $100,000 apiece.

“You can never take the human element out. We can build physical barriers and travel routes and require special equipment/attire, do training and explaining, and people still don’t follow directions. But, to me, some of the design features we put in improve our ability to keep people from messing it up. We have to protect the animals at all cost.”

For added security in the UI project, the two access doors (from barrier and non-barrier sides) to the small animal imaging room will have red and green lights above them. When the red light is on, access will be electronically blocked from that side, explains Dr. Cooper.

“We’re taking that to the next step over time, where if a researcher has been to a nonbarrier mouse facility, they would automatically be prevented from going into a barrier facility on same day. That would be one level of trying to stop people from doing something they shouldn’t. The fi rst place we will be able to do that is in small animal imaging.”

Gary Cooper notes that mockups of proposed spaces helped planners tweak designs, in part by showing how people will actually use them.

Hindsight is always 20/20, adds Dr. Cooper, but utilizing the best planning processes possible, along with mockups and discussions by the users, will reduce future design problems.

By Taitia ShelowThis report is based on presentations Paul Cooper, David Rausch, and Gary Cooper made at Tradeline’s Animal Research Facilities 2014 conference.

For More Information:

Paul Cooper, DVM, received his veterinary degree from Iowa State University in 1975, and joined a small animal practice near St. Louis, Mo. In early 1977, he accepted a clinical veterinarian position in the animal research program at the University of Iowa. He currently serves as the University’s attending veterinarian and director of the Offi ceof Animal Resources (OAR) under the vice president for research and economic development. He provides veterinary and administrative oversight for budgeting, staff, travel, professional development, and primary research support activities. His principal responsibility as the attending veterinarian is to develop and implement an effective program of veterinary care.

Gary Cooper is vice president and principal-in-charge of projects at Alvine Engineering, where he has worked since 1979. Cooper is a member and past president of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers Inc.; a member of the International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering; and a member of the Advisory Committee for Mechanical Courses, Architectural Engineering Program at his alma mater, Southeast Community College in Milford, Neb.

David Rausch joined Phoenix Controls in 2006, and is currently the senior marketing channel manager. He has been involved in many aspects of product management, product design, and project design of specialty mechanical devices and controls within the laboratory industry for more than 12 years. Rausch is an active member of ASHRAE and a voting member to several of its technical committees, and serves as secretary of New England’s Chapter for I2SL. He has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Old Dominion University and an associate’s degree in applied science/mechanical engineering from State University of New York (SUNY) Morrisville.

Gary CooperVice PresidentAlvine Engineering1102 Douglas St.Omaha, Neb. 68102(402) [email protected] [1]


Paul Cooper, DVMAttending VeterinarianUniversity of Iowa400 Medical LaboratoriesIowa City, Iowa 52242(319) [email protected] [2]

David RauschSenior Manager of Channel MarketingPhoenix Controls75 Discovery WayActon, Mass. 01720(978) [email protected] [3]

Project Team:Rohrbach Associates PC Architects Architect of RecordGwathmey Siegel Kaufman Architects Exterior Design ArchitectPayette Planning ArchitectAlvine & Associates Mechanical and Electrical EngineersCharles Saul Engineering Structural EngineerConfl uence Landscape ArchitectPhoenix Controls HVAC ControlsAircuity Inc. ACH Demand-Based Control SystemEdstrom Industries Inc. Animal Watering SystemThoren Caging Systems Animal CagingLynx Product Group Cage Wash Beta Star Life Science Equipment Autoclaves

© Copyright Tradeline, Inc. 2015. Reprinted with permission, all rights reserved. TradelineInc.com is a registered product of Tradeline, Inc., a provider of leading-edge resources to facilities planning and man-agement through conferences, publications, and the Internet commu-nity. Visit www.TradelineInc.com for more information.

“Before I take this on for you, let me show you a few things so that you might be able to do it yourself.”

“I have made so many commitments to others, it would be unfair to them and you if I took on anything more at this point.”

“If I can’t give you a ride to the school dance on Friday, how else would you get there safely?”“I don’t know how soon I can help you on this, but I will get back to you as soon as I am free to help you.”

“I’m sure we’re close enough that when I say “no” you’ll understand it’s for a good reason.”

“Sure I can help you with your request as long as we both agree and understand that the item I agreed to do for you yesterday is going to have to wait.”

“Before I take this over from you, what do you think we ought to do about it?”

“I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is, I sure can do that for you. The bad news is, I’m so overloaded with everything else, I’ve become delirious and have been lying about my commitments.”

“When I get overwhelmed like I am now, I remove every third person who asks me for something, from my “Good Friends List” and the second person just left.”

“No.”

“Thanks for thinking to ask me, but, no thanks.”

“I would like to help you out on this but you understand I don’t have the resources available to do the right job for you.”

“Now that’s the type of thing I would love to help you on if only I had the time.”

“Just like you, I get overloaded sometimes and have to tell some very special people, “no.” This is one of those times.”

And as you speak, smile.

Would you like to receive free Timely Time Management Tips on a regular basis to increase your personal productivity and get more out of every day? Sign up now for our free “TIME MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION LIST”. Just go to: http://www.topica.com/lists/timemanagement and select “subscribe”. We welcome you aboard!

Dr. Donald E. Wetmore-Professional SpeakerProductivity Institute-Time Management Seminars127 Jefferson StreetStratford, CT 06615(800) 969-3773(203) 386-8062fax: (203) 386-8064Email: [email protected]: http://www.balancetime.comProfessional Member-National Speakers AssociationCopyright 1999 You may re-print the above information in its entirety in your publication, newsletter, or on your webpage. For permission, please email your request for “reprint” to: [email protected]

(Continued from page 29) Just Say No


How you Make DecisionsIs As Important As What You Decide

Conventional thinking has suggested that leadership positions go to those who aggressively plan their ca-reers with a keen eye for building the right skills to reach top jobs. Others believe that leaders are born, not made. But according to research one of us (Julia) conducted for her book Pivot Points, the key differenti-ator between the career arc of someone who becomes a successful business leader and the average person is consistency in how the person makes major deci-sions.

In-depth one-on-one interviews with fi ve recognized leaders who have been operating CEOs in fi ve differ-ent industries—PR (Al Golin), health care (Glen Tull-man), fi nance (John Rogers), social enterprise (Dale Dawson), and marketing (Bud Frankel)—revealed that their leadership development occurred in a process far more organic than career planning. Each one made a number of pivotal decisions with unwaveringly strong accountability and ingenuity that triggered learning and growth.

A further survey of 500 college-educated individuals in

professional careers supported this fi nding and iden-tifi ed inclusiveness in the decision-making process as the key differentiator of leadership. Specifi cally, respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement on a fi ve-point scale with 40 statements of various decision-making behaviors they used at differ-ent career decision points. A variable cluster analysis found strong agreement with the following three state-ments as the behaviors that distinguished decision making with leader-like accountability and ingenuity:

Before making a decision at a critical time, I invested time and effort to explore multiple perspectives, needs, and ideas through a proactive dialogue with experts and stakeholders.

During the decision-making act, I weighed a variety of options.Then, after making the decision, I explained it fully to all stakeholders to reduce the stress of change among those affected.

Note that this inclusive process is not decision-mak-ing by committee or by consensus. It’s the process of


constant connection with respected experts and stake-holders, which enables them to recognize business opportunities and threats, and fi gure out how to adapt or take advantage of them. Habitual outreach prevents insular thinking, opens doors to ideas and collaborative relationships, expands problem-solving perspectives, and increases the range of resources for implementa-tion. Most importantly, it enables real-time adjustments that improve outcomes. This inclusive approach takes 360 degrees of context into account, thereby ensur-ing better decisions and a higher chance of successful implementation.

In its full context, the study asserts that, over time, leaders who follow this inclusive process progressively stand out from the crowd. Consider the story of Bud Frankel, the founder of Frankel, a fi rm that created the marketing services industry (where both of us eventu-ally worked) that gained a national reputation and at-tracted clients across both the consumer and health-care areas.

As a leader in his company, Bud used what he called “Management by Wandering Around” (MBWA), where he’d stop into offi ces and ask the opinions of employ-ees, clients, and others to gather insights about his organization and clients. He made it comfortable for people to give him contradictory advice and bad news. In doing so, he discovered major fl aws in the com-pany that called for radical change. One such issue was years of growing discord between himself and his partner, Marv Abelson, and its divisive impact on the organization. “We were an ‘us’ team when we started out. Then competition between us brought out insidi-ous kind of stuff—that’s my designer, that’s my copy-writer, why isn’t your guy billing as much as my guy, all kinds of stuff,” Bud recalled while being interviewed for the book. “We were Abelson-Frankel, yet operated as two separate agencies.”

Bud sought outside counsel on the fairest way to fi x the issue, namely, to break up the partnership. Various perspectives he obtained helped him clarify his options and enabled rational decisions for all parties to focus on moving forward. He came up with two workable op-tions: to buy or sell. Bud’s partner decided to sell and got cash, as well as the opportunity to hire any em-ployee for his new agency.

With the purchase of Abelson’s shares, Bud invested all of his efforts to galvanize clients and employees around one vision and one leader. He took full own-ership for the implementation of the decision, explain-ing his thinking and the implications to those affected.

He encouraged feedback—even if the subordinate and clients disagreed with him—monitored the com-pany’s progress and the results, and changed course when necessary. “Mostly I looked at the people and saw how they were doing and feeling,” Bud said told us in conversation. “I based a lot of decisions on the staff. If the staff were uncomfortable with a decision, I’d look at it.” What’s more, he would openly admit his mistakes, even apologizing at times to employees who expressed disagreement with his decisions when they did not turn out as hoped.

As the agency grew, Bud appointed an agency leader-ship team and focused his energies on scaling up the company’s unique value proposition. Bud continued to use MBWA to randomly drop in on meetings and pep-per others with questions and stories, prodding them to create the breakthrough ideas that actually worked in the marketplace. He also formalized an outside ad-visory board of business leaders, thus ensuring that future leaders of the company would also get feedback on important leadership decisions.

Bud’s inclusive approach kept him constantly connect-ed with the pulse of his clients, employees, and the mar-ketplace, and helped him decide on the ways to profes-sionalize the marketing services industry and start his agency. Near the end of his career, it also helped him decide to sell Frankel. Through his ever-broadening perspective, he led Frankel to develop many fi rsts, in-cluding the fi rst worthy cause promotion and the fi rst to use computer graphics in advertising. It helped his own career to grow from a commission-based salesperson to a global, industry-changing business leader, market-ing legend, and later, philanthropist.

In today’s fast-paced environment of dramatically changing technologies and global forces, leaders need to understand how to make the right decisions the right way. By making use of those around you in under-standing the situation, weighing a variety of options, and explaining the decision to stakeholders, leaders can make better decisions and set themselves up for future success.______________________________________Laurence Minsky is Associate Professor in the De-partment of Communication and Media Innovation at Columbia College Chicago; his most recent book is The Get a Job Workshop.________________________________________Julia Tang Peters is a leadership adviser to C-level executives and the author of Pivot Points: Five Deci-sions Every Successful Leader Must Make.


Why Real Leaders Pump GasJim Clemmer

Chief executives give great speeches on the importance of quality, leadership, teamwork, and employee participation. But in improving organization performance, as in golf, it’s the follow-through that makes the difference.

Consider the case of one Canadian company that had been “doing quality” for about two years. It followed the textbook perfectly. Trainers and facilitators delivered introductory workshops to the 1,500 employees. Enthusiasm and interest began to build as hundreds of suggestions poured in.

Work teams were formed with eager volunteers among employees, union leaders, and professional staff. The teams collected and analyzed data on the root causes of a wide number of problems.

All this led to a series of “small win” improvements that increased team momentum and enthusiasm.

But by the second year, all this activity wasn’t producing the results the organization needed. The teams realized the biggest problems lay with the organizational systems, processes, structure, and management procedures. And that’s where they hit the wall.

The improvement effort turned out to be a “bolt-on” to the side of the normal management practices. While managers gave their blessing (and often passionate lip service) to the effort, they didn’t embrace and lead it. The quality coordinator has since quit and most of the teams’ enthusiasm has turned to cynicism.

But some improvement efforts are thriving, and in those cases, there is evidence of strong executive leadership.

Canadian Airlines International Ltd. of Calgary, for example, has substantially increased customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness during the past two years. President Kevin Jenkins leads the effort through constant visits and consultations with pilots, mechanics, airport staff, fl ight crews, and administrative support staff. He regularly works at important customer-contact and support positions in full uniform. (Recently, he worked one day as a Vancouver gate agent for some of Canadian’s Asian fl ights.)

This hands-on experience helps him appreciate

customer and employee perspectives and understand Canadian’s processes from the inside.

Mr. Jenkins focuses his management team on these processes through biweekly reviews of key service and quality performance indicators. Top managers hold daily conference calls reviewing Canadian’s “on-time performance,” in which Mr. Jenkins participates at least once a week.

There are also examples of executive leadership in the public sector. Pat Henderson, chief executive of Freeport Hospital in Kitchener, ON, is personally leading her institution to “do more with less.” She is working with the board of governors to restructure the hospital’s maze of committees around a strategic focus of meeting customer needs and improving quality of care while reducing costs.

In addition to their own training and planning sessions, Ms. Henderson and her managers lead cross-functional teams of physicians, nurses, and employees. Their job is to map, analyze, and improve the core processes and systems that pull together the work of frontline care givers and support staff.

Leading by example is also a theme at Canadian Tire Corp.’s petroleum division. To improve customer satisfaction, there is a policy that all customer complaints will be resolved within twenty-four hours at the gas bar. President Jim Ryan frequently shows the urgency of service recovery by personally calling unhappy customers in a bid to win them back.

To keep priorities straight, everyone at the Toronto home offi ce, including Mr. Ryan, periodically spends a few days pumping gas. At Petroleum Management College, managers are given two to four weeks of training. Mr. Ryan kicks off every session by discussing the organization’s values and the importance of continuous customer service and quality improvement.

It’s been said that “children are natural mimics — they act like their parents despite all attempts to teach them good manners.” As with parenting, executives speak a louder sermon with their lives than their lips. Words — no matter how passionate — are not enough.


David StehlikRegent University

The following analysis illustrates that organizational failures occur as a combination of leadership, followership, and cultural problems by contrasting the positive and negative examples of each. None alone is usually the sole culprit. The organization’s front person is not always running the ruse. Having examined relevant literature, pride and sloth emerged as the prevalent root causes of most leadership and followership failures. Because organizational failures have vast global and cultural ramifi cations, this topic is of immediate importance for globalization, which, in this period of economic recession, will likely result in further market consolidation, and so the question will become: Will the acquisitions succeed or fail to merge? Thus, in the following sketches of what makes leaders, followers, and organizational cultures great or prone to fail, consultants, becoming better equipped to assess organizational risks and leadership needs, should recognize that failure is more complex than the usual caricatures reveal. Well-known management models are shown for their usefulness in helping bridge the gaps.

The Blame Game

A constant often unmentioned in discussions of death and taxes is the failure of the organization. What causes such failure is a question strategy consultants ought to be familiar with and have an answer to, because failure seems to knock on the doors of all organizations at some point, and knowing how to bid him adieu is wisdom of great value. As executioner of the perpetual cycle of creation and destruction in the global marketplace, organizational failure is an equal opportunist. What follows, therefore, is an examination of reasons why leaders, followers, and their organizations succeed or fail. Comprehensive examinations of successful leadership, followership, and organizational culture are beyond the scope of this article; but, the following couplets will get consultants started by describing positive characteristics which should suffi ce in providing a backdrop against which the stark attitudes and actions aligned with failure will be readily visible.

Great Leaders

The word “leader” has powerful undertones. Leaders are often identifi ed with strength, and even when leaders fail, they are bemoaned for the magnitude of their failures. In examining what causes leadership failure, therefore, it helps to understand what leaders ought to be like. Throughout history, memorable leaders have been singled out and honored for their boldness and sense of conviction (Sonnenfeld, 1997, p. 34). Great leaders assess and avoid risk when possible without incurring negative repercussions. Additionally, they understand the communication required to tie multiple parties’ motivations to their efforts and link strategy and functions across their organizations, ensuring engagement in accord with the leadership plan and schedule (Caffrey & Medina, 2011, p. 45).

They balance the paradoxes of exercising power with being the primary organizational servant and of casting unique visions with feedback solicitation to build unity and drive change (Sonnenfeld, 1997, p. 38). Simply put, great leaders tend to be more: 1) perceptive to the present organizational realities, 2) capable of forecasting the approximate future, 3) persuasive in communicating for change, and 4) adept in executing change strategy (Thornton, 2011, p. 17).

They are inquisitive, asking questions and listening to gain knowledge To them, the maxim “knowledge is power” is almost sacred, because new information helps them mitigate present or potential risks, closing gaps that could halt organizational progress (p. 18). For such leaders, the future is promising, and the present is only disciplined dedication and improvement away from that preferable future (p. 20). Carefully describing their vision with a clear message, tactful and illustrative, so as to convey it in a manner that unites and inspires broadly, through a valuable combination of urgency-inducing examples, these leaders deftly exercise the power of communication (p. 19). They can function with managerial prowess, “planning, organizing, measuring, controlling, and motivating” employee activity (p. 20). And, they usually exhibit incredible patience and

Failure: The Impartial Executioner of Leaders, Followers, and Their Organizations


fortitude as their vision unfolds – though this can also be a pitfall as explained in the next section. These leaders do not leave followers confused. They, “train, educate, and keep people informed,” just as they would desire their leaders to do unto them, and they promote an air of celebration for achievement from the start (p. 20).

Failing Leaders

Obviously, some leaders fail because they are “toxic” (Chaleff, 2009, p. 182). Like the scandalous bankers of recent years, they care little for the consequences of their actions when the resulting injury only affects others with little recourse (A guide, 2002; Chaleff, 2009, p. 183; Patsuris, 2002; Slater, 2012). Thus, the following reasons for failure will most always be witnessed in situations with toxic leaders. With that noted, numerous reasons for failure exist, and they primarily stem from individual pride. For instance, egos that blind leaders to helpful, competitive ideas, fi ltering information so only that which coalesces with the leaders’ positions is retained, arise from pride, which receives no challenge out of audacity as well as fear (Thornton, 2011, p. 18). The leader who will not question himself is dangerous and unfair to his organization and its future. And, the leader who is too fearful to address necessary problems is like a man who denies proper treatment to a wound. Such failing leaders, “jump to inaccurate conclusions,” as they are unwilling to explore new avenues of thought, tuning out important but disagreeable information; and therefore, they cling to an illusion rather than reality (p. 18).

Moreover, this position keeps them from receiving vital feedback and limits their involvement with followers and peers, whom they alienate with their arrogant denials of criticism. Without these opportunities to serve alongside others of similar life position, leaders block themselves from exposure to the insights of those whose own leadership positions offer what would seem to be a more palatable context (read: less humiliating) for receiving counsel. Other problematic symptoms of arrogance include: declining social and political involvement, an unwillingness to acknowledge the implications of a changing environment and break with the past, and an increasing fear of failure as the former symptom compounds any penalties for not changing (Sonnenfeld, 1997, p. 37; Thornton, 2011, p. 19). Regarding communication, such leaders give a convoluted message and are visibly devoid of passion. It may be that they do not have a clear vision about which they can get excited. They do not understand the importance of simplifi cation and make diffi cult any follower’s task of understanding and engaging the vision – as well as not building an argument as to why it would

benefi t the follower (Thornton, 2011, p. 20). Illogically, these leaders seem to believe that their organizations can forever rest on past achievements as well as employ conventional methods to attain unconventional goals (Jennings, 2012, p. 14). Also, as Komai and Stegeman (2010) point out, leadership failure can also result from too many unsuccessfully initiated projects or leading change efforts with too much enthusiasm, not demonstrating empathy toward those followers most drastically affected (pp. 57-58). Additionally, an organization’s reliance on any leader is proportional to the damage that leader can cause through failure (p. 57). Sometimes said leaders are incompetent, or they act too slowly and superfi cially, which is exacerbated and quickened by this reliance (Ready, 2005, p. 22).

For Consulting Considerations

Given the failures described, in contrast with the characteristics of great leaders, consultants should consider most seriously the kinds of models, tools, and assessments which will drive leaders in self-awareness. The two models below will be familiar for their general use in organization and negotiation strategy, and so leaders will likely readily accept their validity. Furthermore, they are easily repurposed for the object under review: the leader.

SWOT Analysis

The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis can be used to draw the leader into accepting that s/he does have weaknesses that can be listed (ask mentors, subordinates, and family members), which, by themselves actually pose a threat to him or herself as well as their followers and organization.


Johari Window

The Johari Window is a great tool for showing a leader that s/he evaluates him or herself using a different data set than his or her followers. Aligning their perceptions comes at the cost of greater openness. Revealing information can be positive or negative, depending on the motivations and tenor of the audience to forgive, appreciate, and believe.

Great Followers

The makeup of a good follower is an important contrast to those followers found in organizational failure scenarios. Followers who require minimum supervision and are competent in their work equate to reduced demands on leadership and an increased ability among leaders to move forward in trust that such followers will accomplish the tasks they have been assigned (Allen, 1965, p. 83). These followers view themselves and their work as valuable to the organization and take responsibility to “[put] the objectives and requirements of the group as a whole ahead of [their] own personal interests” (p. 83). Nevertheless, these men and women recognize that such responsibility implies they will speak out against bad policy formation while not participating in sabotaging policies once decided upon (Chaleff, 2009, p. 98).

Valuable followers are strategic sources of information who keep communication open with their leadership, aligning with what helps the organization and against what harms it, whether that be the leader or the organization itself (p. 99). With regard to leaders, they oppose arrogance, explosive anger and intimidation

tactics, and destructive personal behaviors (pp. 102-106). Organizationally, “if the process for input into decision making is…credible and open,” they are willing to help leaders, “challenge individuals who are disregarding it or challenge the organizational culture itself to value it more” (p. 99). Their actions are inherently moral, conscious decisions, guiding the organization by the behaviors it is supposed to value and which “govern decent organizational behavior while preserving the

capacity of the organization to fulfi ll its purpose” (pp. 149-150). Followers have to set the example for others in unstructured leadership positions when questionable leadership arises in their organizations by deciding between leaving, publically opposing, or becoming internal change agents (p. 150).

Leaders’ relationships with followers ought not be rife with contention. They ought not be adversarial in nature. Followers are not Social Darwinism’s failures who were dominated by victorious leaders now in control (Kelley, 1992, p. 35). In fact, followers sometimes hold equal or more power in directing organizations than their positional leaders. All the more important then, because of their sheer number in comparison to positional leaders, is that followers exercise what Robert Kelley (1992) labeled the “courageous conscience” (p. 168). As Kelley’s research revealed, followers think about and talk about, “the moral component of their role more often than their leaders do” (p. 167). Thus, the follower needs to be able to, “judge right from wrong and [have] the fortitude to take affi rmative steps toward what one believes is right,” as well as


abstain from disagreeable actions with, “conviction…in the face of strong societal pressures” (p. 168). Kelley identifi ed two key components to great followership: “independent critical thinking and active engagement,” which prove crucial to effective moral decision making (p. 173). Finally, as with great leaders, great followers are discerning when making decisions that could result in failure and question themselves thoroughly regarding potential approaches’ costs and benefi ts in dubious situations (pp. 176-182).

Failing Followers

Kelley (1992) categorizes poor followers with labels such as “conformist,” “passive,” and “pragmatic,” all emphasizing problems stemming from varying degrees of intellectual laziness as opposed to the critical thinking characteristic of great followers (p. 173). The fi rst allow their leaders to decide for them (abdication of personal responsibility); the second will only make the moral decision when pressured; the third will try sidestepping suspicious situations with rationalizations instead of, “disturb[ing] the status quo to do something worthwhile that needs being done” (p. 173). Furthermore, lazy followers are more prone to egotism, tend to be impatient and leave organizations when they are frustrated with leadership rather than working through confl ict and resistance issues (Allen, 1965, p. 83; Kelley, 1992, pp. 173-174). Criticism becomes intolerable, and their self-adulation hinders their ability to supply insight and foresight to their organization. Pertaining especially to the “pragmatic follower,” such self-centeredness appears much like the poor leader addressed above, “believ[ing] it is okay for the larger group to be

inconvenienced or suffer in order for them to get what they want” (Kelley, 1992, p. 174).

Additionally, poor followers are often hindered by psychological fears such as, “personal impotence vis-à-vis a toxic leader” and “ostracism, isolation, and social death,” as well as psychological needs including, “security and certainty,” feeling “chosen” and being included in “human community,” being at the center of attention for increased self-esteem, and feeling signifi cant by, “commit[ting] to a noble vision” (p. 184).

For Consulting ConsiderationsAs noted above, the followers who drive the organizational cart rather than weigh it down are the ones who are actively involved and who think critically on their own. They might frustrate leaders from time to time, because they think with the organization’s best interest in mind. For example, if they think the leader is not checking the facts well enough or remembering organizational history clearly, then such followers will point those inconvenient facts out or remember the sullied history for everyone. In the end, however, they are the best allies for their quality of work and their care. Consultants can use the following models to encourage teams of key organizational members to decide promptly, with and without information, and also to think with a variety of priorities in mind so as to strengthen their analytical skills to complement decision-makers.

The Consequences ModelThe Consequences Model looks at the extent of consequences given the length of time spent gathering


information pertaining to any matter for decision. It illustrates that as time increases, the knowledge gathered for the decision increases, presumably and inversely making the decision less risky and removing doubts (consequences decrease). Teams can use this tool once they know what information they need to make decisions. It will keep those decisions in front of them, disallowing them the silence of indecision without visible consequences by asking: How long have we been at work on this, and what do we know now that was previously unknown? If that necessary information is known, riskiness is at an acceptable level and a decision needs to be made. Further delay is unwarranted.

The Role Playing Model (Edward de Bono’s “six thinking hats”)

With the Role Playing Model, people are led in facilitated thinking exercises, where they are asked to dialogue from a shared frame of mind – emphasized by wearing hats of the same color. De Bono offered six mindsets represented by six colors (see below). Hats, wristbands or anything highly visible may be used, but they must be the same color at the same time to emphasize the point that we are each stronger in some ways of thinking than others, and that divergent thinking is good for highlighting how we generally prioritize decisions according to different values based on our experience with a particular “color.” Additionally, by seeing each other’s strengths, we can leverage them for leading in particular tasks. We can also be made aware of weaknesses which accompany those strengths in order to understand

A Word about Culture

Culture is easy to notice, but difficult to capture. Culture can be used to mean the shared experiences of a people, and it relates to all of the group’s varying needs. It permeates society and directs its discourse. According to the classic defi nition given by Sir Edward Taylor, culture is, “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any

other capabilities and habits acquired by (individuals as members) of society” (Cellich & Jain, 2004, p. 24). Organizational culture includes, “the set of values, norms, guiding beliefs, and understandings…shared by members of an organization…taught to new members as the correct way to think, feel, and behave” (Daft, 2013, p. 390). Of the three aspects of culture readily recognized, that cultures are learned, interrelated in public and private life, and that they must be shared, the fi rst is most pertinent to this discussion, for it assumes that culture can be taught (Cellich & Jain, 2004, pp. 24-25).

Hypothesizing that leaders can affect organizations through awareness and management of organizational culture, Ray and Goppelt (2011) conducted research on communication networks, “propos[ing] methods that both enhance practitioners’ ability to infl uence organizational culture change through individual transformation in a leadership development [program] and aid researchers in understanding if and how a leadership development program creates organizational culture change” (p. 61).

That the workforce is changing through both the infl ux of millennials and recession-driven acquire-to-merge environment, is obvious. Coupled with the radical pace of technological and social change occurring since the late 1990s, Balda and Mora (2011) conclude in their recent article that “future organizational paradigms will have to develop a multigenerational collaborative culture,” and that servant leadership is the best approach, “contribut[ing] to these new networked and collaborative organizations to help Millennials fl ourish

and prepare them for leadership positions as well” (p. 13). Their position also assumes leaders’ capability of constructing culture. Thus, all roads to culture affecting leadership – and vice versa – point to heavy investment needed in modeling/training and communication efforts. Such needs should be an area of proficiency for consultants. Conducting workshops and crafting implementation plans to develop younger leaders and change culture is bullet-wound, Band-Aid thinking.

Organizations need to think like you think, otherwise, how can they legitimately value what you offer? This means consultants should place greater emphases on facilitation of in-house leadership development programs and culture change initiatives. The added value the organization gains from acquiring these skills far exceeds the cost of time it takes for this thinking to mature, because the organization change is not stopping. The environment is not standing still for their programs. Knowing how to build and develop


the organizational architecture, therefore, is crucial to sustainable competitive advantage through leadership development and culture-crafting.

Great Organizations

Strong organizations are marked by a combination of both good leadership and followership where there is interdependency among leaders and followers, and cooperation supersedes selfi nterest (Allen, 1965, p. 84). Such organizations value the up-and-coming generation of workers in their midst and have senior leaders who “own the talent and leadership development agenda” by taking an inventory of the workforce and building opportunities and bridges for future success into the current organizational structure (Ready, 2005, p. 21). For instance, these organizations have cultures which support cross-department experience and training rather than favoring only those who excel in a particular business unit, handle a certain business function, or work out of a specifi c offi ce to the effect of penalizing workers who would train broadly and have a diverse career with vabolstered by inquisitive leadership and creative followership. Furthermore, followers in these organizations are aware of expected and valued behaviors and ethics. Such clear expectations establish an atmosphere where questionable activities are unlikely to persist, morally and statutorily prohibited or allowed by policies and procedures already instituted. This means leaders and followers should encounter fewer situations where they must rely solely on personal courage in order for the organization to exit the matter properly (though good leaders and followers have that courage when necessary) (p. 25).

Failing Organizations

Failing organizations experience countless problems. Vague communication to workers about the mission and vision makes measuring work against strategic objectives diffi cult (Caffrey & Medina, 2011, p. 43). Perhaps most egregious is the “climate of distrust” which plagues these organizations, further obstructing singleness of motivation (Sonnenfeld, 1997, p. 35). Organizational learning and training programs to develop various levels of talent are viewed as unimportant or as all cost and of doubtful benefi t; and, if any exist, they are usually hostages of organizational politics, rarely advancing true managerial growth (Ready, 2005, p. 25; Sonnenfeld, 1997, p. 37).

When organizational policies are indefi nite, followers and leaders operate according to their own habits and moral codes, some being stricter and more culturally-

bound than others. Depending on the organization’s worker diversity, such a setting is ripe for producing confl ict (Allen, 1965, p. 81). Much organizational failure can be accounted for if one considers leaders’ lack ofknowledge for leading change processes, the failure of applying such knowledge in follower relationships, the blindness such leaders exhibit toward hidden organizational conflicts, and the indifference such leaders demonstrate toward poisonous organizational cultures (Mauer, 2010, p. 37; Mauer, 2011, p. 34). This will remain unchallenged without proper training and modeling.

Company responses to Ready’s (2005) study showed that organizational cultures, systems and processes, and cognitive misfires were responsible for most failures (p. 24). Regarding the fi rst, respondents saw the silo effect, useful in establishing stronger individual performances among divisions and sometimes reducing bureaucratic processes, resulted in disunity and harmed the cohesion and progress of organizational vision. Such divisions discouraged leaders’ and followers’ exploration and partnership beyond their silo’s walls, resulting in reduced resource sharing, collaborative ventures and developments, and, “opportunities to develop talent across the enterprise” (p. 24). Per the second, respondents pointed out that “systems and processes for identifying and developing leadership” were in place, but they did not work. Thus, said companies lacked the leaders-in-training to, “achieve their companies’ [present and forthcoming] strategic priorities” (p. 24). This defi ciency was partially blamed upon entrenched ethnocentrism, which limits broader identifi cation and assessment processes (p. 24). And, the third reason was a criticism of rganizational development being “a cost item rather than a critical strategic investment” (p. 25).

For Consulting Considerations

An Appreciative Inquire (AI) Modelst organizational exposure (p. 25). These organizations are forward-acting, a trait AI, according to Moore (2008), “is based on valuing and recognizing the best in people or the world around us. And it means asking questions and being open to seeing new potentials and possibilities in people and organizations” (p. 216). For organizational culture to develop positively, members have to dialogue positively. This can be diffi cult in decision-making meetings when everyone has something to gain or lose by being heard and influential. The following model illustrates the kind of language helpful for positively dialoguing while also generating ideas (top right quadrant). Some may claim this is just verbal foolery, but think of it like this: if confl icting ideas are presented, the better idea can


infl uence the other ideas through this technique. Without AI, the focus will remain on the lesser ideas, and the dialogue may become adversarial. Energy for growth accompanies creativity and positive elements. Frame your responses in this manner and you will force yourself to appreciate the positive aspects of others’ ideas and think creatively before critiquing another’s idea

A Confl ict Resolution Model

Only one ideal outcome emerges from confl ict, the one which brings the parties together, a solution developing of their “one mind.” That is also known as a win-win resolution. It is only win-win if neither avoids the matter, harms the other party, quits prematurely, has a third-party decide for them, or compromises. Some might think negotiation is winning the most away from the other party, or that compromising is the way to build relationships that last, but both are not resolutions. They leave the relational tension unresolved. Compromise and its subset, arbitration, are both rational tactics, unlike the others, but neither brings the parties together. When working with organizational culture, there are subcultures which may need to be addressed. They will especially surface amid budget discussions and anytime silo-thinking puts different organization functions, product/service lines, and geographies at odds. It is then when a meeting of the minds is needed to mend rifts. Use your knowledge of the ideal and several non-ideal tactics to frame a workshop regarding current approaches to inter-departmental decisions and external partnerships which are handled in an irresolvable manner. And, as a consultant, realize the implications for your confl ict negotiation work: You cannot facilitate resolution without having the right stakeholders present.

Conclusion

So, why do organizations fail? They can fail because of any number of combinations of problems with the leaders, followers, and organizational cultures, for it goes without saying: “It takes two to tango” (Block, 2000, p. 202). Sometimes unconvincing, arrogant leaders may be guilty, and sometimes wishy-washy, irresponsible followers are to blame. Sometimes the organization’s

unwritten rules seem to be at fault, opposing change-agent followers and dynamic leaders who would guide posi t ive organizat ional change. Regardless, it is the consultant’s responsibility to recognize that accusations rarely offer the full picture, and multiple parties are often partially responsible. Consultants, therefore, need to help organizations face and own their fault honest ly by conveying realistic expectations of stakeholder responsibility. Using tools such as the models presented should

help organizations lift the fog and bid foreseeable and preventable failure “Begone!”

About the Author

David Stehlik is a strategy consultant in Fort Wayne, Indiana, providing corporate training services to clients of Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, and an adjunct professor for the University of Saint Francis’ (Fort Wayne) online MBA program. Concurrently, he is a student in Regent University’s doctoral program in strategic leadership. Inquiries regarding this article may be addressed to David Stehlik at [email protected].

ReferencesA guide to corporate scandals [Electronic version]. (2002, July 15). The Economist.

Allen, L. A. (1965). Leaders who fail their companies. Business Horizons, 8(2), 79-83.

Balda, J. B., & Mora, F. (2011). Adapting leadership theory and practice for the networked, millennial generation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5: 13–24. doi: 10.1002/jls.20229


Block, P. (2000). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Caffrey, N. G., & Medina, C. G. (2011). Doomed to fail. Quality Progress, 44(1), 40-45.

Cellich, C., & Jain, S. C. (2004). Global business negotiations: A practical guide. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Daft, R. L. (2013). Understanding the theory and design of organizations (11th ed.). N.p.: South- Western, Cengage Learning

Jennings, J. (2012, August). Let go of resistance: The fi rst step to reinvention is moving past yesterday’s breadwinners. Chief Learning Offi cer, 11(8), 14.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow, and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Komai, M., & Stegeman, M. (2010). Leadership based on asymmetric information. RAND Journal Of Economics (Blackwell Publishing Limited), 41(1), 35-63. doi:10.1111/j.1756- 2171.2009.00089.x

Maurer, R. (2010). Why do so many changes still fail? Journal For Quality & Participation, 33(3), 36-37.

Maurer, R. (2011). Why do so many changes still fail? (Part two). Journal For Quality &Participation, 33(4), 33-34.

Moore, M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry: The why: The what? The how? Practice Development n Health Care, 7(4), 214-220. doi:10.1002/pdh.270

Patsuris, P. (2002, August 26). The corporate scandal sheet. In Forbes.com: Accounting. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html

Ray, K. W., & Goppelt, J. (2011). Understanding the effects of leadership development on the creation of organizational culture change: A research approach. International Journal of Training and Development, 15: 58–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-419.2010.00368.xReady, D. A. (2005, November 29). Is your company failing its leaders? Business Strategy Review, 16(4), 21-25. doi:10.1111/j.0955-6419.2005.00375.x

Slater, S., & Vellacott, C. (2012, July 26). Barclays executive pay-off slammed as “reward for failure.” In Reuters. Retrieved August 3, 2012, from http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/uk-banking-libor-barclays-idUKBRE86P18P20120726?feedType=RSS

Sonnenfeld, J. (1997). How leaders fail. Leader to Leader, (3), 34-38.

Thornton, P. B. (2011). Why some leaders succeed and others fail. Leader to Leader, 2011(60), 17-21. doi:10.1002/ltl.463

Information about models such as those described and displayed in this article can be found at:Moolenburgh, W. (2013). In ProvenModels. Retrieved September 3, 2013, fromhttp://www.provenmodels.com/

Summaries: Management encyclopedia (2013, March 9). In 12Manage. Retrieved September 3, 2013, from http://www.12manage.com/index_expert.html

“I have three precious things which I hold fast and prize. The fi rst is gentleness; the second is frugal-ity; the third is humility, which keeps me from put-

ting myself before others. Be gentle and you can be bold; be frugal and you can be liberal; avoid putting yourself before others and you can become a lead-

er among men.” Lao Tzu


How can leaders bring about greater gains toward pro-ductivity and organizational success? Strength-based leadership, an innovative leadership theory, suggests leaders can achieve this by focusing their efforts on building their own strengths and the strengths of in-dividual followers. Despite research supporting the benefi ts of a strengths approach, many organizations have yet to employ this method of leadership, possi-bly because the organizational design inhibits it. This article outlines the history of the strengths movement and the research that supports a strengths approach. It then introduces the strengths-based leadership model conceived of and popularized by Tom Rath, Barry Con-chie, and the late Donald Clifton. Next, it explores how elements of organizational design affect the styles of leadership employed within an organization. Finally,

this article profi les W. L. Gore & Associates and how its organizational structure positions leaders to develop the strengths of their followers.

William Whyte popularized the organization man as an individual who sought to serve the large organization by ignoring his own aspirations and identity.1 In return, the organization would promise lifetime employment and determine his place in society, pushing him higher up the organizational hierarchy the longer he stayed loyal. Within a decade, the logic of the organization man be-gan to be satirized in what would become known as the Peter Principle, which said that in a hierarchy, employ-ees like the organization man would eventually rise to the level of their incompetence.2 Although initially perceived as satire, recent developments in explor-ing individual strengths have begun to provide support for the Peter Principle. Strengths-based leadership, also referred to as strengths-based development or strengths-based organizational management, asserts that individuals are most productive when operating within their strengths.3 When individuals accept pro-motions that draw them away from their strengths, they become less engaged, eventually awakening one day to fi nd themselves unfulfi lled, bored, drained, and frustrated.4 Research exhibits that employees who are engaged in their work experience are more productive

and contribute more to organizational success.5 De-spite the research supporting strengths-based leader-ship, many organizations are still not properly leverag-ing the strengths of their leaders and followers. The design of the organization may hinder leaders from de-veloping certain leadership styles. One organization, W. L. Gore & Associates, provides a case study of the organizational design hospitable to the development of strengths-based leadership.

A Brief History of Strengths It is diffi cult to pinpoint the exact origins of the “strengths movement” within the organizational and leadership community. Some point to 1967, when Peter Drucker wrote, “The effective executives build on strengths—

their own strengths, the strengths of their superiors, colleagues and subordinates.”6 Others cite Donald Clifton as the godfather of the strengths movement when, 30 years ago, he began a research project with the Gallup organization that would produce several published works promoting a strengths revolution.7 Buckingham and Coffman began this revolution with their book, First, Break All the Rules, which, among other things, described how and why great managers break a hallowed rule of conventional wisdom: that with enough training, anyone can achieve anything they set their minds to.8 Instead, they asserted, the best managers cease coercing people into overcoming their weaknesses and instead fi nd ways to minimize the impact of these weaknesses by maximizing em-ployees’ strengths.

Buckingham and Clifton, in Now, Discover Your Strengths, further explored this premise by providing an explanation for why individuals could not become profi cient in their weaknesses.9 The authors did this by attacking two commonly held beliefs as myths: (a) that anyone can be competent in anything they work hard enough at, and (b) the greatest room for individual growth was in areas of weaknesses. At the time, most of the training programs created by or for organizations

Building the Strong Organization: Exploring the Role of Organizational Design in Strengths-Based Leadership David Burkus


had the goal of making people better at something they were weak in, essentially trying to get people to be-come something they were not. The justifi cation be-hind many of these training programs is the belief that people change as they grow older, thereby making it possible to control what they change into. Buckingham and Clifton challenged this justifi cation, arguing that the biological underpinnings of strengths and weaknesses lay the thick synaptic connections of the brain.10 Hu-mans grow new synaptic connections faster in areas that already have thick concentrations of connections. This allows them to learn the most, generate the most ideas, and have the best insight into areas where they already have generous connections.

Personality research supports this theory. A study of 1,000 New Zealand children found that personality traits observed in a child at age 3 were remarkably similar to those found in his or her personality at age 26.11 Gallup conducted a similar experiment using a strengths assessment and found a similarly strong correlation.12 This implied that the theory keeping so many training programs afl oat was taking on wa-ter. After exposing these two myths, Buckingham and Clifton replaced them with the two assertions: (a) in-dividual talents are enduring and unique, and (b) the greatest room for individual growth was in the areas of strengths.13 In doing so, the authors provided a thought provoking instructional on how to determine an individual’s strengths and develop them for leadership and organizational success.

A few years later, Buckingham wrote that great manag-ers discover what was unique about each subordinate and capitalize on it.14 Additionally, Buckingham tar-geted individual workers, writing that, in order to have sustained success, individuals should discover what

they don’t like doing and fi nd a way to eliminate it from their job or minimize it, in affect focusing individuals on their interests and strengths. The minds behind the strengths movement would make this discovery pro-cess easier by creating and popularizing the Clifton StrengthsFinder15 and outlining a six-week program for individuals wanting to discover and perform within their strengths.16 The most recent and logical step in the strengths dialogue occurred when Tom Rath and Barry Conchie formalized in writing a theory of leader-ship that began to grow out of the body of research highlighting the importance of strengths.17 They called this theory strengths-based leadership.

Strengths-Based Leadership At the core of the strengths movement is the underlying belief that people have several times more potential for growth building on their strengths rather than fi xing their weaknesses.18 A strength is defi ned as the ability to exhibit near-perfect performance consistently in a given activity.19 The aim of strengths-based leadership is to develop the effi ciency, productivity, and success of an organization by focusing on and continuously developing the strengths of people within the organization.20 Strengths-based organizations don’t ignore weaknesses, but rather, focus on building talents and minimizing the negative effects of weaknesses.21 Strengths-based leaders are always investing in their strengths and the strengths of individuals on their team.

Rath and Conchie put forth three tenants of strengths-based leadership, as summarized in Figure 1:

Effective leaders invest in their followers’ 1. strengths. Where mediocre managers seek to

get followers to take responsibility for their weaknesses and devote them-selves to plugging these gaps, great leaders seek to manage around these weaknesses and invest their time and energy understanding and building on followers’ strengths.

Effective leaders build well-2. rounded teams out of followers who are not. Leadership requires strengths in four areas: executing, infl uencing, relationship building, and strategic thinking. While the best leaders do not demonstrate all of these skills, they build their teams so that all four areas are represented.

Effective leaders understand 3.


the needs of followers. People follow leaders for a variety of reasons, some more common than others. Leaders build levels of trust, hope, and optimism by understanding the unique at-tributes of followers. 23

Individuals’ strengths can be discovered by monitoring spontaneous actions, yearnings, or areas of rapid learn-ing.24 In addition, leaders can assess the strengths of themselves and their followers using assessments such as the Clifton StrengthsFinder (now often called StrengthsFinder 2.0). StrengthsFinder assists individu-als in the discovery of strengths by measuring the pre-dictability of patterns of behavior from the results of a forced-choice inventory. The results of the assessment reveal dominant themes of talent. These themes are areas predicted to hold the greatest potential for build-ing on the strengths of leaders and followers. As these themes are used to develop strengths, it’s important to note that leaders and followers shouldn’t strive for a goal of 100% strengths-utilization.25 The leaders of the strengths approach recognize the impending need to work on organizational minutiae and apportion 25% of workers’ time as the appropriate allotment of non-strengths activities.

The strengths approach has developed alongside the equally innovative fi eld of positive psychology.26 This relationship is understandable since the intent of strengths-based leadership is to increase organi-zational success by helping individuals perform op-timally and positive psychology has been labeled as “the scientifi c study of optimal human functioning.”27 Strengths-based leadership appears antecedent to numerous constructs from positive psychology, includ-ing subjective well-being,28 optimism,29 and creativ-ity.30 Positive psychology highlights the need to de-velop major psychological theories around virtues and character strengths, rather than focusing on defi cits.31 Strengths-based leadership supplements the aim of positive psychology by providing a mechanism for identifying positive personal and interpersonal talents in an organizational setting in order to increase indi-viduals’ positive subjective experience.32

Additionally, the strengths approach shares similarities to the developing concept of appreciative inquiry.33 The objectives of appreciative inquiry are to bring out the best in people, organizations, and the world around them and to do so by developing a culture that appreci-ates strengths. In order to capture these strengths, ap-preciative inquiry outlines a method of discovering the

processes that work well, dreaming of what processes could work well in the future, designing and prioritiz-ing those processes, and achieving destiny by imple-menting the proposed design.34 This process bears a striking resemblance to the strengths discovery pro-cess suggested by the strengths-based leadership proponents. However, appreciative inquiry is typically utilized as a systems approach, whereas strengths-based leadership is most often labeled as an individual approach.35

Research supports the utilization of strengths-based leadership for optimizing an organization. When an organization’s leadership does not focus on individual strengths, that employee has only a 9% chance of be-ing engaged. However, when an organization’s lead-ership focuses on individual strengths, employees have a 73% chance of being engaged.36 Additionally, strengths-based leadership has been identifi ed as a core element of “positive leadership” and correlated with increases in follower optimism, engagement, and project performance.37 The term engagement refers to the broad and deep connection that individuals feel with their organization.38 Employee engagement has been signifi cantly correlated to business outcomes in-cluding profi tability, turnover, safety, and customer sat-isfaction.39 Among religious congregations, research reveals that members of faith-based communities who have the opportunity to operate in their strengths regu-larly are more engaged than those who don’t.40 En-gaged members volunteer more, give more money, are more likely to recruit others, and have higher life satis-faction scores than those who are not engaged.

St. Lucie Medical Center in Florida provides a case study on the impact of strengths-based leadership ini-tiatives.41 This 150-bed hospital faced shockingly low employee engagement scores and a turnover rate of 53%. The hospital decided to study the talents of its people, beginning with top leadership and eventually rolling out talent inventories to every employee. The results of these inventories were used to build teams that properly leveraged individual employees’ talents. Within 2 years, the hospital saw its attrition rate drop signifi cantly, with equally signifi cant rises in employee engagement scores. Perhaps more impressively, St. Lucie saw a drastic increase in the satisfaction rates of both patients and physicians, putting St. Lucie on the road to becoming one of the area’s most well-respect-ed hospitals.

Yet, despite nearly a decade of research and published works stressing the importance of strengths, fewer than two out of ten Americans believe that they work in a role that utilizes their strengths most of the time.42


In addition, over half of all American employees believe that they will experience bigger gains by fi xing their weaknesses rather than building upon their strengths.43 One of the possible reasons for this might be the relationship between organizational design and leadership, specifi cally the affect this relationship has on how leaders within the organization develop their leadership style.

The Role of Design Selznick claims, “The theory of leadership is embed-ded within the organization,” an assertion of the affect of organizational design on leadership.44 Organiza-tional design refers to a structured, guided process for integrating an organization’s resources, including people, technology, and information.45 This design process helps to increase the probability of success within the organization and individual members by at-tempting to align the form and functions of the organi-zation as closely as possible to the intended mission and purpose of the organization. Leadership has been theorized to be dependant upon the dynamics of the organization.46 Overall, organizational design consists of specifying three elements: strategy, structure, and systems. Each of these elements of organizational de-sign exhibit an infl uence on the leadership style dem-onstrated within the organization.

Strategy is concerned with how the organization will in-teract with its competitive environment in order to fulfi ll the mission of the organization.47 Strategy is the cur-rent set of plans, objectives, and decisions that have been made in order to achieve the organizations goals and to further its mission.48 In defi ning its strategy, an organization must consider whom it seeks to serve, how it will serve, what makes it unique from competi-tors, and how it can gain a competitive advantage. The choice of strategy affects many characteristics of the organization, including leadership style. Research highlights the importance of properly aligning leader-ship style with organizational strategy in order to en-sure organizational success.49

Structure represents the form of the organization, its people, divisions, departments, and functions. These structures provide labels to describe how the orga-nization works together and to compare it with other organizations. Structure is often represented as an organizational chart.50 When determining structure, organizations must consider who does what, who has the ability to make decisions, and who should answer to whom.51 Relationships exist between organiza-tional structure and the top-down leadership style that develops.52 Bureaucratic structures tend to develop

transactional leaders, while organic structures tend to develop transformational leaders.53

Systems are the sets of interacting elements that re-ceive inputs from the environment and transform them into output discharged into that environment. Systems are the less tangible aspects of organizational design but they play a vital role in how individuals within the organization determine appropriate behavior and per-formance.54 Often as an organization grows larger, more formal systems are put into place that are intend-ed to manage information and detect deviations from establish standards.55 These formalized, mechanistic organizations create an environment that tends to fa-vor transactional leadership styles.56

These three elements of organizational design each exert an effect on how leaders determine the style of leadership they will utilize, demonstrating that organi-zations must consciously build the desired leadership style into their organizational design. This implies that, in order to see strengths-based leadership develop among the leaders of an organization, it must be built into the design of the organization. One company, W. L. Gore & Associates, provides an exemplary model for organizational design that allows strengths-based leadership to thrive.

A “Strong” Design W. L. Gore & Associates is a manufacturing company that was founded in 1958.57 Besides being known for their innovative Gore-Tex® fabric, Gore is also known for its innovative organizational design, which has led to their being one of only three companies to appear on the “100 Best Companies to Work For in America” rank-ings every year since the list’s inception in 1984.58 Ad-ditionally, Gore has been named the “Most Innovative Company in America” by Fast Company magazine.59 Gore’s revolutionary structure is the brainchild of Wil-bert “Bill” Gore, who left a 17-year career with DuPont to experiment with the potential of polytetrafl ouroeth-ylene (PTFE).60 Having worked on small, innovative research and development teams, Bill Gore wondered why an entire company couldn’t be organized with the same freewheeling, autonomous energy. Much of Bill Gore’s management philosophy was infl uenced by McGregor’s theory Y construct, which argued that hu-mans were self-motivating and sought to fi nd mean-ing in their work.61 Gore leverages individuals’ desire to fi nd meaning in their work using an organizational design that is unique in its strategy, structure, and sys-tems.62


Porter describes the essence of strategy as “choosing to perform activities differently than rivals do.”63 Us-ing this description, Gore’s strategy would be choos-ing not to spend a lot of energy formalizing their strat-egy or core business.64 This method serves to further the company’s mission statement: to make money and have fun.65 Leaders at Gore encourage innova-tion and give associates “dabble time” to create new product breakthroughs. Associates are free to make commitments to projects that they believe they will enjoy and can positively contribute to. Most of Gore’s products initially started as the focus of an associate’s “dabble time.” This strategy—pursue fun projects—has resulted in a portfolio of over 1,000 products while also allowing individuals to commit themselves to projects they feel will best utilize their strengths.

With the exception of four major business divisions, the company is void of the usual structural elements.66 Instead of a hierarchy, Gore utilizes what it calls a lattice, a fl at structure where every person is connected to every other person in the plant.67 All individuals enter the company equally with the title “associate.” There are no bosses at Gore. Instead, the perplexing questions of “What do I work on?” and “What’s my next career move?” are worked out between an associate and a sponsor.68 Sponsors are veterans that help decode the jargon and guide associates through the lattice. In their fi rst few months, associates circulate through a variety of teams and, along with the sponsor, decide what team would provide the best fi t. They then make a commitment to a particular project and team. In lieu of bosses, associates become responsible to the team they commit to. This loose structure allows associates to experiment, under the supervision of their sponsor, until they fi nd a project their strengths can contribute to and a team that needs their strengths in order to become more well-rounded

Additionally, Gore doesn’t directly hire or promote lead-ers. Instead, leaders are determined by followership.69 If associates choose to follow another associate, then that associate becomes a leader. Gore labels this pro-cess natural leadership, with leaders gaining credibility from unique knowledge, a history of success, or in-volving others in signifi cant decisions. Gore seeks to hire people who they hope will become leaders and waits to see if those people develop good ideas and persuade others to adopt those ideas.70 As such, it is the people who regularly contribute great ideas that are likely to fi nd themselves at the top of the leadership role regardless of whether or not they carry much deci-sion-making power. Indeed, over half of the company’s associates describe themselves as leaders. However, becoming a leader is not a requirement for a fulfi lling or

engaging career. Because of the format for developing into a leader, only those who feel that leadership lies within their strengths aspire to and are rewarded with leadership. Likewise, those who believe that becoming a leader is not within their individual strengths are not stigmatized.

The lattice structure of Gore also affects the organiza-tion’s systems. Every person and department directly interacts with every other person and department.71 Founder Bill Gore believed that every organization has an underground lattice structure despite the formal structure and systems, which people use to get infor-mation and further projects. This underground lattice is also where informal cross-functional teams form to develop new products and initiatives. Gore’s unique structure simply makes this underground lattice the formal one, bringing all of these benefi ts to the fore-ground. The lattice structure, with open and informal systems, also allows the strengths of one individual, team, department, or division to seek out and utilize the strengths of any other entity. W. L. Gore & Associ-ates has not directly instituted any formal strengths-based leadership initiatives. However, the uniqueness of its strategy, structure, and systems created an orga-nization where strengths-based leadership appears to have developed and thrived.

Conclusion Strengths-based leadership is the culmination of an innovative movement asserting the importance of strengths with over 30 years of research. However, de-spite the available research demonstrating the benefi ts of strengths-based initiatives on individual and organi-zational success, most organizations are not engaging their employees using a strengths-based leadership model and most individuals don’t realize the growth potential of building upon their strengths. Research ex-hibits a relationship between the design of an organiza-tion and the leadership styles that organizational lead-ers develop. One company, W. L. Gore & Associates, utilizes a unique lattice structure that allows associates to make commitments to projects they feel will engage them and utilize their strengths. While not formally in-stituting a strengths-based leadership initiative, Gore’s unique structure appears to have positioned itself to develop and benefi t from strengths-based leadership. Furthermore, Gore’s organizational design avoids the doomsday prediction of the Peter Principle by avoiding hierarchies and seeking to help each associate make commitments to tasks that leverage their strengths and allow them to succeed. Organizational leaders can learn from the design of W. L. Gore & Associates


Endnotes 1 Whyte, W. (1956). The organization man. Simon & Schuster: New York, NY.

2 Peter, L., & Hull, R. (1969). The Peter principle: Why things always go wrong. William Morrow & Company: New York, NY.

3 Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths-based leader-ship: Great leaders, great teams, and why people follow. Gallup Press: New York, NY.

4 Buckingham, M. (2007). Go put your strengths to work: 6 powerful steps to achieve outstanding performance. Free Press: New York, NY.

5 Clifton, D., & Harter, J. (2003). Investing in strengths. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton, & R. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organi-zational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 111-121). Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Fransisco, CA.

6 Drucker, P. (2007). The effective executive. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK. p. 22.

7 Rath, T. (2007). Strengthsfi nder 2.0. Gallup Press: New York, NY.

8 Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differ-ently. Simon & Schuster: New York, NY.

9 Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discover your strengths. Free Press: New York, NY.

10 Buckingham & Clifton (2001).

11 Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Milne, B., Amell, J., Theodore, R., & Moffi tt, T. (2003). Children’s behavioral styles at age 3 are linked to their adult personality traits at age 26. Journal of Personality, 71, 495-514.

and the model of strengths-based leadership to help ensure that every employee eventually rises to the level of their competence.

About the Author David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab, a community of resources dedicated to promoting the practice of leadership theory. He is a consultant, a speaker and an adjunct professor of business at several universities. Inquiries about this article can be directed to the author at: [email protected] Buckingham, M. (2005). The one thing you need to know: About great managing, great leading and sustained individual success. Free Press: New York, NY.

13 Buckingham & Clifton (2001).

14 Buckingham (2005).

15 Rath (2007).


17 Rath & Conchie (2008).

18 Rath (2007).

19 Clifton & Harter (2003).





24 Hodges, T., & Clifton, D. (2004). Strengths-based de-velopment in practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), International handbook of positive psychology in practice (pp. 256-268). Wiley: New York, NY.


26 Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Hayes, T. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.

27 Sheldon, K., Frederickson, B., Rathunde, K., Csikzent-mihayli, M., & Haidt, J. (2000). Positive psychology manifesto (Rev. Ed.). [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.positivepsychology.org/akulmanifesto.htm

28 Deiner, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a natural index. American Psychology, 55(1), 34-43.

29 Peterson, C. (2002). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44-45.

30 Cassandro, V., & Simonton, D. (2002). Creativity and genius. In C. Keyes, & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well lived (pp. 163-184). American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.

31 Seligman, M., & Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.


33 Cooperrider, D., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. In T. Devane, & P. Holman (Eds.), The change handbook (pp. 245-261). Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.

34 Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. (2008). Es-sentials of appreciative inquiry. Crown Custom Publishing: Brunwick, OH.

35 Schutt, D. (2007). Strengths-based approach to career


development using appreciative inquiry. NCDA: Broken Arrow, OK.


37 Arakawa, D., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Optimistic man-agers and their infl uence on productivity and employee engagement in technology organizations: Implications for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 78-89.

38 Gebuaer, J., & Lowman, D. (2008). Closing the engage-ment gap: How great companies unlock employee potential for superior results. Portfolio: New York, NY.

39 Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes (2002).

40 Winseman, A. (2002). Doing what they do best. Gallup Management Journal, 2(3), 1-4.

41 Black, B. (2001). The road to recovery. Gallup Manage-ment Journal, 1(4), 10-12.

42 Buckingham, M. (2008). The truth about you: Your se-cret to success. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.


44 Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Row, Peterson & Co.: Evanston, IL. p. 23.

45 Austin-Roberson, K. (2009). Making better, strong churches through organizational design. Journal of Strategic Leadership, 2(1), 27-39. 46 Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. 47 Kiedel, R. (1995). Seeing organizational patterns: A new theory and language of organizational design. Berrett-Koe-hler: San Francisco, CA.

48 Daft, R. (2009). Organizational theory and design (9th ed.). Southwestern: Cincinnati, OH.

49 Burton, R., Eriksen, B., Dojbak Håkosson, D., & Snow, C. (2006). Organization design: The evolving state-of-the-art. Springer: New York, NY.

50 Daft (2009).

51 Austin-Robertson (2009).

52 Khandawalla, P. (1977). The design of organizations. Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich: New York, NY.

53 Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press: New York, NY.

54 Kiedel (1995).

55 Daft (2009).

56 Bass (1985).

57 Manz, C., Shipper, F., & Steward, G. (2009). Everyone a team leader: Shared infl uence at W. L. Gore & Associates. Organizational Dynamics, 38(3), 239-244.

58 Manz, Shipper, & Stewart (2009).

59 Deutschman, A. (2004). The fabric of creativity: Pound for pound, W. L. Gore just might be the most innovative company in America. Fast Company, (89), 54-62.

60 Hamel, G., & Breen, B. (2007). The future of manage-ment. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

61 McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill: New York, NY.


63 Porter, M. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-78. 64 Hamel & Breen (2007).

65 Shipper, F., & Mainz, C. (1992). Employee self-man-agement without formally designated teams: An alternative road to empowerment. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 48-61.

66 Hamel & Breen (2007).

67 Erickson, T., & Gatton, L. (2007). What it means to work here. Harvard Business Review, 85(3), 104-112.

68 Hamel & Breen (2007).


70 Rosen, C., Case, J., & Staubus, M. (2005). Equity: Why employee ownership

is good for business. Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA.

71 Shipper & Mainz (1992).


https://kschlieff.wufoo.co/forms/m1ry26910orftq/

Discounted LAMA T-shirts!!!!!Get the coveted 2015 LAMA T-shirt that everyone is wearing!!! Supplies

Limited.

Order TODAY!!!Cost of shirts including shipping:$15.00 - Med, Large, XL$17.00 – XXL

Get Yours at :


Membership ApplicationName

Courtesy Title Ms. Mr. Dr. None

Academic Degree

Professional Designation/Certifi cation

Title

Organizational Contact Primary Alternate

Company

Address1

Address 2

City, State, Zipcode

Organization Phone Number

Organization Fax Number

Individual Phone Number

Individual Fax Number

Email

Website

Email address of person requiring confi rmation if other than attendee

Membership Type $100 Individual Member (Domestic)

$120 Individual Member (International)

$325 Institutional Member

Institutional Members may add up to three additional individuals at no additional charge, after that there is a $100 charge per individual, please attach separate membership forms with contact information for each individual.

LAMA Foundation Friend: $

(The LAMA Foundation provides scholarship funding for managers pursuing professional managerial education and training)

Payment Information Checks must be in U.S. dollars and drawn on a U.S. bank and made payable to the LAMA. LAMA TIN#: 52-1828124

Please remit to:

LAMA15490 101st Ave N #100Maple Grove, MN 55369

Phone: 763.235.6484Fax: 763.235.6461www.lama-online.org

Check Credit Card Type: AMEX MC Visa DiscoverCard Number

Expiration Date

Cardholder Billing Address

Card Code

City, State, Zip

To submit this form via our Secure Data Upload website Log in with user name lama and password lam321 (password is case sensitive) Skip directly to Step 3! Click the Browse button to locate your completed registration on your computer, then click the Upload button to submit your completed form.

Documents

2015 2nd qtr lama final