An Oportunity to Offer Sage Advice

Kyle Blades asks for advice on LinkedIn: The Kiss of Death: Young and Different. Please chime in.

My advice:

Read MICROCOSMOGRAPHIA ACADEMICA by Conford. You fall into the classification of "young man in a hurry." My solution to your problem would be to start with small engagements: prove you can solve small problems, and deliver beyond expectations. While working on the starting task, look for opportunities to pitch a grander change. But, also do your homework in the mean time. Don't bring an idea, bring a 5-paragraph OPORD and a team. Have a thorough dissection of the situation and assets. Create a vision considering the commander's intent two levels up. Create alliances with willing participants. Etc...

Sorry for the military jargon. OPORD = Operations Order which coresponds to a business plan. Kyle was a marine.

Are We Being Drawn Farther Apart?

My reply to a blog post on Linked 2 Leadership: Human Connection: The Achilles Heel of Technology

I find the opposite to be true.

Reply #1: You only have so much time. Would you rather use that time managing or leading? A key element of my consulting practice is to encourage the use of technology to reduce the amount of time spent managing in order to increase the amount of time available for leadership. Conversations are key to leadership. Managing conversation threads and contact lists takes time. I would rather spend that time conversing. I encourage the use of these tools to facilitate your ability to lead.

Reply #2: There have long been forms of communications used to maintain emotional closeness between people who are physically separate. Rather then look at this as though we are being drawn farther apart, look at this as a means to draw us together.

A Definition of Change

A transliteration of Schofields Definition of Discipline
The change which makes a team reliable for the future is not to be gained by burying your head in the sand. On the contrary such behavior is more likely to destroy then to make a team. It is possible to look ahead and provide vision in such a manner and such an attitude as to inspire in the team no feeling but an intense desire to accept change, while the opposite manner and attitude cannot fail to excite strong resistance and a desire to maintain the status quo. The one mode or the other of dealing with an opportunity for change springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the leader. He who can see and hence project the value of change cannot fail to inspire in others a desire for change, while he who can only see, and hence project, the personal risks of change, especially to the reluctant, cannot fail to inspire sabotage of the change.

Where's the Sale?

RT @GabrielGrimes I've run into the same question again. "What s the difference between Marketing and Selling?"

This question implies there is a gray area between marketing and sales and Gabriel is trying to draw a line between the two.

This question sounds remarkably like the typical ethical dilemma, "what is the difference between right and wrong." Instead of trying to classify right and wrong as two sides of a coin, it is better to consider them as extreme ends of a continuum. At either end things are clearly right and wrong, but between is a giant gray area.

However, in this case the extreme ends of the continuum are not marketing and selling, rather they are marketing and collecting. At one end is the attempt to shape market forces in order to draw attention to the product. At the other end is the transaction exchange, i.e. receiving something of value in return for delivering the product,i.e. "collecting." "Selling" is an optional, interim step, not the end game.

In my terms selling as a one-to-one interaction that results in an agreement for a transaction. The transaction is the sale. In modern times, transactions occur without selling.

The newest social technologies, Web 2.0, take this one step further. There is a new gray area between marketing and customer support. The modern view should be that producers must establish relationships, Web 3.0, with consumers. Periodically this relationship results in a sale. The sale can occur to this particular consumer, or to another influenced by the relationship. In the interim, the producer must ensure customer satisfaction in order to keep the relationship positive and subsequently the influence of the relationship.

Schofield's Definition of Discipline

The discipline which makes the soldiers of a free country reliable in battle is not to be gained by harsh or tyrannical treatment. On the contrary, such treatment is far more likely to destroy than to make an army. It is possible to impart instruction and to give commands in such a manner and such a tone of voice to inspire in the soldier no feeling but an intense desire to obey, while the opposite manner and tone of voice cannot fail to excite strong resentment and a desire to disobey. The one mode or the other of dealing with subordinates springs from a corresponding spirit in the breast of the commander. He who feels the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them regard for himself, while he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his inferiors, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.

John M. Schofield, 1879

I am placing this quote in the blog as a reference for some further discussions.

The Ideal Mentor

The question in the LinkedIn group Linked 2 Leadership by John Bishop was: "Understanding the blind spots – Leader’s weaknesses and mentoring others"

I built a series of fractal models to help leaders identify their weaknesses and blind spots. The ideal Mentor is sufficiently different from you that through their influence, you can find and fix your blind spots. The links are below.

One use of fractals is to identify holes. The technique is to sub-divide an item into components, then make a pattern from the components. The pattern that emerges will have holes. In this situation: the item is you, the components are your skills, the pattern is your outlook towards life, and the holes are your blind spots. However, know thyself should only be considered the first pass. You need to compare yourself to others, or in Robert's terms, "take the other person's view." In fractal terms, you create a new pattern out of two and discover where components from one cover the holes of another.

In this situation, this is where Mentoring comes in. The ideal Mentor would be sufficiently different from you so that you can learn from your Mentor to adjust your outlook towards life (adjust your pattern) and provide vision into your blind spots (learn new skills). This can only happen if your Mentor is sufficiently different in their outlook towards life and skills for you to make a meaningful change.

My models provide you with a default pattern and list of skills. You use the model by marking your skills within the pattern. Your holes are the unmarked items or areas. My models are here ordered from simplest to most detailed:

1. Leadership Vs. Management
2. Beyond Leadership and Management
3. Leadership and Management are just the Tip...

Don't forget Nothin

The question in the LinkedIn group Leadership Think Tank was: "What do you believe to be the top three (or more) "secrets" of your success?..."

My answer is:
"Don't forget nothin." - a poor rendition of Robert Rogers' 28 "Rules of Ranging"
together with...
"Don't memorize anything..." - Attributed to Einstein

To me this means:
Pay attention to everything.
Determine the first principles involved.
Incorporate these into your knowledge base.

This way, you don't have to memorize facts. You internalize a few key principles. With these you can access the details whenever necessary and also be able to do much more then repetition alone allows.

The Measure of Management

The desire to classify the types of managers came from research for my Ethics Vs. Honor post. In working on that post, I recognized that different types of people view ethics and honor differently. Along those lines, and related to the Leadership Vs. Management debate, there must also be different types of managers. This begs the question, "how do different types of people view management," and directly from there, "what are there different types of management?"

How do you classify the types of management? The typical classification is based on the nature of the various types of managerial control. I have included these below. The key differentiator between leadership and management is that nature of leadership is people and the nature of management is things. Since all Things can be measured, I also felt it was a useful exercise to develop measures for each type of manager.

I have already posted one interesting side effect of this analysis: Leadership = Management. No matter what type of manager someone is, their overall duty is to generate more value from their resources then the resources' separate value. The whole must be more then the sum of the parts. This is remarkably similar to the measurement of teamwork. Hence, the previous post.

Project Management

Control: Project Managers control tasks. Tasks have a beginning and an end.
Measurement: Project Managers should be measured by their affect on scope creep, i.e. a net positive combination of scope, cost, schedule, and quality, i.e. you can have it fast, cheep, or good; pick two.

Operations Management

Control: Operations Managers control ongoing processes. Resources contribute to a flow of activities that generate a stream of results.
Measurement: Operations Managers should be measured by their affect on a flow of resources, i.e. a net positive combination of resource cost and value added by these resources to the finished products.

Capital Management

Control: Capital Managers control assets. Assets provide support to the processes and tasks of an organization.
Measurement Capital Managers should be measured by how the assets enable the generation of value for the organization, i.e. it costs less to maintain then the value it contributes.

Other Types

Obviously these are broad classifications. There are a large number of names of types of managers, e.g. Program manager, Facilities Manager, Financial Manager. If you consider the three basic types above as a triumvirate, you will see that each of these various instance types can be located somewhere in this triangle:


An easy example to look at is Program Management: Program Managers are responsible for an ongoing flow of projects. Therefore Program Management is a combination of Project and Operations Management. A more complex example is Crisis Management: Crisis managers must be able to react quickly to an remediate an extreme external force of change. In order to be able to do this, the must create and maintain contingency plans and resources. So, they are part Capital Managers. Also, they must be able to complete a task, i.e. resolve the crisis. Therefore, they are also part Project Managers. The fact that a Crisis Manager must act under extreme duress and under short deadlines masks the nature of their control.

Change Management

It is fair to argue that Change Management does not fall in the triangle. The argument is that all managers are responsible for Change. "The only constant is change." My position is that since Change is a responsibility, Change is a a leadership activity. Change is different then change management. Since "The Change" is a task, Change Management is a type of Project Management. More on Change in a future post.

I can see additional post possibilities coming from this discussion. Are there these types of management because there are these types of people, or vice-versa: a chicken or the egg causality dilemma. Also, do people become these types of managers because they are these types of people, or do people become these types because they are brought up under these types of management: a nature versus nurture debate.

To help me get this post organized, I originally posted this question on LinkedIn. Donald Davies, Juan García, Charlie Tian, Harold Hunt, Pravin Upadhyay, Gerry Scullion, Bernard Gore, Mukund Toro, and Bryan deSilva contributed to the discussion in the Question and Answer forum. Anthony Reardon contributed to the discussion in the group, Leadership Think Tank.

Leadership = Management

A leader realizes more value from the combination of people into a team then the individuals can realize independently.

A manager realizes more value from the combination of resources into a product then the resources are worth, separately.

Therefor leadership = management. I don't abide by this, but the parallels are eerie.

Ethics Vs. Honor

Honor is a necessary leadership trait. Ethics is managed honor. As such I resist the use of ethics as a substitute for honor.

Tribes make rules. The tribe's rules define the consequences for good and bad behaviors.

Tribes need rules. There are people willing to take actions that are bad for the tribe. If someone wants the protection of the tribe, then they need to know what is considered bad. Tribes enable the "ignorance is no excuse" trump card by codifying the rules.

Notice I don't say, "If someone wants the protection of the tribe, then they must follow the rules." Notice I don't say, "Rules define right and wrong." Just because there is a rule, this does not mean the behavior is wrong. Here I, again, pull out the "killing Hitler" trump card. At some point in Hitler's life is was definitely right to kill him. At that point, it was also definitely against the rules.

Self-Actualization is the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In my terms "Right" equals "Morally Good" and "Honor" is the skill to decisively make a right decision.

Moral decisions are challenging. There is the challenge of "unintended consequences." There is the challenge of "the greatest good." The study of ethics is the study of right and wrong. Would you kill your mother if that would cure the world of aids? By studying ethics, people think these types of situations through before they occur and thus become prepared to act according to their concept of right and wrong. They have developed their honor code.

I resist using the use of ethics as a substitute for honor. Granted, there will be rules of right and wrong; however, these do not always serve the leader. Leaders take their tribes into territories and to heights they would not otherwise achieve. In these territories, the rules have not been written. In the absence of rules, leaders must be able to set the standard of good and bad. The ultimate height is moral goodness. By acting honorably, the leader sets the highest example that good behavior is expected at all times and in any situation.

Professions are types of tribes. Professional organizations write rules called the "ethics of the profession." Calling these rules, "ethics," suppresses leadership. Obviously professions codify good and bad behaviors. However, the term implies that every rule is about right and wrong, the ethical discussion is complete, and there is no room for leadership.

Is leadership becoming a profession? The evidence points this way. There are professional societies. There is professional development. There are journals. Will there become a code of good and bad in the profession of leadership? Probably, but I hope we don't call it "ethics." Will these be a managed list of "rules to follow?" I vote no: leaders lead!

P.S. Notice I also don't say, "Rules define the consequences for certain thoughts." I would not want to be a member of that tribe.

How Do You Establish Trust?

David Vittoria has a blog post, Trust or Bust. His post is focused on maintaining and enhancing trust. How about establishing trust?

In the Scientific American article, The Neurobiology of Trust, the authors equate the establishment of trust as gift giving. You must give in order to receive. You must start small, and then you can grow. Therefore, in the realm of trust, you must first give some trust to another before you can receive some.

People cannot lead unless others trust them. If they cannot give trust, they cannot get trust. Therefore if they cannot give trust, they cannot lead.

How do you establish or recommend establishing trust?

I asked this question on LinkedIn. Please feel free to add to the discussion in the Linked 2 Leadership or Leaders and Thinkers groups.

What does it mean to be promoted to your level of incompetence?

As you go up in responsibility, you have less and less direct control over the people who are doing the real work; however, it is not a continuum. I see the stages below to where be the key barriers to leadership growth and organizational growth exist. In each case the barrier is trust. To succeed at each level, you must let go of something and accept a dramatically different view of your illusion of control.

A clarification to an answer I provided in a discussion in the LinkedIn group Linked 2 Leadership. Tom Hawes asked the question and for the clarification. Thanks to Tom for an interesting question.

What stages of maturity have you observed in strategy leaders in business?

A discussion in the LinkedIn group Linked 2 Leadership

1. First line leader - the stage where you need others to do things you are responsible for.

2. 3rd line leader - the stage where you need others, with whom you are not personally familiar, to do things you are responsible for.

3. Chief - the stage where you need others, who are completely free to take their own actions or who are qualified to be your boss, to do things you are responsible for.

4. Executive - the stage where you need others, out side of your organization, to change the environment so your organization can do the things you are responsible for.

How can Common-sense be developed?

How can Common-sense be developed? Business and leadership is surely a lot about common-sense; being observant, pro-active and prepared. What are the ways to nurture this (un)common-sense.

A discussion in the LinkedIn group Leadership Think Tank

Hi Jayapria, I would add to Nayana's comments: ... and deep.

The job of a teacher is not to teach but to spark an ongoing willingness to learn. A doctor should not treat the symptoms, but the disease.

In learning science, you study "first principles." These are statements that apply no matter the situation. I think in attempting to teach common sense, you should be trying to get people to understand not "the problem" but rather "the nature of the problem" and not try to find "the solution" but rather "the type of solution." If someone can understand the nature of the problem, they are more likely to be able to apply a similar type solution from their experience. People should not be trained on applying solutions to problems, but rather to apply a type of solution to a type of problem. I am not sure that is common sense, but it is trainable.

That being said, experience helps. Experience helps people identify "types" and matches more quickly.

What is more important?

What is more important: Doing what is right or what is legal?

A discussion in the LinkedIn group Leadership Think Tank

My Answer: This sounds like a typical ethical dilemma. The right answer is only obvious when the sets are (right and legal) or (wrong and illegal). What happens when the sets are (right and illegal) and (wrong and legal)? Sorry, Madhu, but I believe there are actions that are both right and illegal. Here I expose the "Killing Hitler" trump card. I can only provide my opinion as an answer to the question. Clearly there are people who are willing to take actions that are (wrong and legal). I have more respect for people willing to take (right and illegal) actions. I believe doing what is right is more important.

Are you in control?

Are you in control? I mean really in control?

A discussion in the LinkedIn group Linked 2 Leadership

My Answer: Control is an illusion. The only control you have over others is that which they give to you; however, this can be taken away at any time. You can control your conscious thoughts; however, you can't control your subconscious' ability to overwhelm these. You can control your actions; however, you cannot control the consequences of these. What is left? simply being. If that is not enough, then be the best.

Definitions of Leadership

This post will be an ongoing work in progress. Please check back for updates.

The ability to get someone to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason, with a sense of purpose, and without being told. - Gordon Taras

With integrity, authenticity, and accountability, leadership provokes inspiration, empowerment, and collaboration to craft adaptive approaches to achieve shared goals and realize a common vision. - Nancy Caviness

In turbulant times a true leader is one who is able to create trust among the team members, shows genuine compassion for people and causes they work for, ensures stability though consistant values and behavious and finally brings in hope for success by providing direction, guidance and faith! - Shakun Khanna

Leadership is about creating a compelling vision, recognizing that there will be problems to overcome, and creating an environment where others recognize the value in the vision and willingly want to help overcome those problems. - Jim Stokes

From The Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester: The process of influencing the behavior of other people toward group goals in a way that fully respects their freedom. - Erik Stephens, CFI

For me, a great leader is someone who:
-stood and committed for something really big, for others not for onseself
-being unstoppable, took (relentlessly) un-known, un-tested actions and inspiring, enrolling others to register
-keeping his/her words and empowering others to achieve their goals (walk the talk)
-easily access to other' world to get what is happening over there and enroll others into his/her world to share and speak the common language to coach and get things back on track. - Chinh Hoang Xuan

Leadership is about (new) RESULTS. There is a "call for leadership" when you want to bring something new into existence. There is a "call for management" when you want to reproduce consistent, repeatable, reliable RESULTS. - Dave Perfetti

A leader leads people; a manager manages tasks and numbers. - Doug Geniesse

2 from Michael King:

The Leader puts forth a vision and creates a space for others to find themselves. The people are fully and authenticly engaged while focusing on achieving the goal. Inside this space people willingly apply themselves along lines of excellence. The gift of the leader is to add the skill sets required to generate self expression and the coaching to be rigourously focused.

In order to lead you must serve.

Ralph Nader: I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers. - Kalyse McElveen

University of Exeter, Center for Leadership Studies, Leadership Southwest: Leadership Definitions - Denis Bourne

John Maxwell: Influence....not more, nothing less. - Bob Ferngren

An authentic leader is a visionary, and has the charisma to entice people to voluntarily and enthusiastically follow that vision without being asked. - Lory Mitchell

My favourite - Lao Tzu: A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worse when they despise him....But of a good leader who talks little when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, "We did it ourselves." - Stuart Bishop

A leader is a person who has a ability to sense the problem, provide the solution and produce results. - Moin Salah-ud-Din, EDP

A leader is a custodian of all the energies, wisdom and experience that come from his team. His job is to correctly deploy those energies. A leader is a channeliser of energies. It is his job to achieve maximum benefit of aggregation from those energies. - Dr. Ravi Prakash Mathur

A leader is someone who inspires others with purpose and creates an environment in which they can excel. - James Donnelly

The practice of getting one or more people to do something or become something difficult that they would not do on their own, without using force. - William Howard

Leadership is the intentional capacity to change space and time. - Kristoffer Nelson, Kris' Website

6 From Grant McKenzie:

Peter F Drucker: Leadership is lifting a person's vision to higher sights, the raising of a person's performance to a higher standard, the building of a personality beyond its normal limitations.

Tom Landry: Leadership is getting someone to do what they don't want to do, to achieve what they want to achieve.

Dwight D. Eisenhower: Leadership: the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

Jesse Jackson: Leadership has a harder job to do than just choose sides. It must bring sides together.

John Quincy Adams: If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.

Rosalynn Carter: A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.

The Fable of Napoleon's Lieutenant

I don't take credit for this one. This is one of the leadership lessons I learned at West Point.

Napoleon routinely picked the dumbest soldier in his army and appointed him lieutenant on his personal staff. Before issuing an order to his army, he would give the order to this lieutenant and then ask the lieutenant to repeat it back. If the lieutenant made a mistake, Napoleon would re-write the order until the lieutenant got it right. Napoleon's reasoning was that if the lieutenant could understand the order, then surely his generals could also understand the order.

The moral of the story is that it is not the manager's responsibility to give instructions that can be understood, but rather, the manager's responsibility is to give instructions that cannot be misunderstood.

Admittedly, This is a difficult skill for managers to learn. The primary barrier is embarrassment. The manager is embarrassed to ask for the employee's to provide feed back since this can show that the manager does not know how to communicate. The employee is embarrassed to provide feedback since this can show that the employee does not understand. For both sides, there is a possibility for this exercise to expose weakness. However, if the manager and employee can conduct this exercise routinely, then both will gain trust with each other and both will learn how to communicate better.

There is also a discussion on LinkedIn.

Leadership and Management are just the Tip...

Third of a series of three: Leadership Vs. Management, Beyond Leadership and Management, and Leadership and Management are just the Tip...

I agree that leadership and management are necessary at all levels. However, at the top level, I don't believe they are sufficient.

I understand the temptation to lump all of a chief's skills under the topic of either leadership or management. I prefer to organize them this way for a number of reasons.

This layout reflects the growth of skills needed by the chief as the size or complexity of the organization grows. At the lowest level, the chief is influencing individuals. At the mid level, the chief is influencing teams. At the highest level, the chief is influencing the environment.

It is difficult to comprehend large lists. With this layout, you only have four things to pay attention to at any moment. If you need to drill down on any one, then you have only 4 more. Instead of 2x30, where 30 is an absurdly large number, you have 4x4x4. Also, it is difficult to comprehend the interconnectedness of various skills if they are all lumped into only two groups.

I like to recognize that a chief at the highest level has multi-dimensional problems to solve. To solve them, the chief must bring in multi-dimensional solutions. These come from a multi-dimensional skill set.

As you grow in responsibility, a number of necessary skills do not fall into either camp of leadership or management. Perhaps they fall into both: such as the ability to think strategically. Perhaps they fall into neither: such as diplomacy.

Chiefs are initially successful because they can provide a key skill to a key need. But what happens then? Over time, the key need changes. What happens when the chief is missing the key skill for the next key need? By periodic reviews of skills and needs, the chief can develop additional skills over time.

The prime indicator that a chief has reached this level is that they are more focused on their environment rather then focused on their organization.

The main goal of the chief as they approach this level is to ensure subordinate chiefs have all the skills necessary to be an organizational level chief. Their subordinate teams should have the responsibility and authority to take independent action.

Admittedly, it is difficult for a chief to be skilled in all of these items. Aids can provide strength to cover weaknesses. Coaches can identify emergent scenarios where the chief's skills are weak for an emergent need.

I would like to thank William Howard and others for commenting on Leadership v Management. I will be approaching my LinkedIn network for additional definitions of leadership.

Beyond Leadership and Management

Second of a series of three: Leadership Vs. Management, Beyond Leadership and Management, and Leadership and Management are just the Tip...

Based on feedback from the first post in this series, Leadership v Management, I have decided to not have separate level-titles. I will now refer to the "responsible-person" at every level as the "Chief."

In the first post in this series, I described the component skills of the leadership and management groups. Though the skills of leadership and management are necessary at all levels, they are not sufficient beyond the team level. As the organization or environment becomes more complex, the chief needs additional skills.

At the Organization level, the chief needs skills in the additional groups of "Goals" and "Teamwork." As chiefs become responsible for more complexity, their component teams must be self-leading and self-managing. However, the chief is responsible to ensure they work together towards common goals.

Skill	Measurement
Management	Efficiency
Leadership	Effort
Teamwork	Ease
Goals	Effect

The key indicator that group is at the organization level is that the Chief does not have direct managerial or leadership influence over all the people. As a rule of thumb this would normally be a third line chief. That works for a large company, but in a smaller company, these skills may be needed at a lower level.

There is a more precise way to determine this. When chiefs give directions to their component teams, they make judgments on who gets to do what based on the component team's capabilities. As the chief measures these capabilities, the critical question is, "are they considering each person in their component teams?" If there are too many people so they only can consider the component team's capabilities, then they are at this level.

Thanks to Mike Kilbane for the primary motivation for dumping the level-title of "Supervisor." I also updated the previous post to accommodate this change.

Leadership Vs. Management

First of a series of three: Leadership Vs. Management, Beyond Leadership and Management, and Leadership and Management are just the Tip...

Leadership

The ability to get someone to do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason, with a sense of purpose, and without being told.

Management

The ability to allocate the right resource to the right task at the right time.

But what comprises Leadership and Management and together, what does this combination represent? Based on my experience, I have come up with the following MECE breakout of the two:

Team Level
Leadership	Duty	<=>	Discipline	Management
	Vision	<=>	Foresight
	Honor	<=>	Detail
	Responsibility	<=>	Control

I am not in the habit of favoring one over the other. I believe these two skills should be in balance.

If you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time exercising your management skills, consider automating some of your tasks. Otherwise your team will loose the value that good leadership provides.

Likewise, if you might find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time exercising your leadership skills. Please realize leadership is not enough to get the job done. If you are in this position, consider digging deeper into the mechanics of your team's responsibilities. You should find opportunities to generate efficiencies or to expand responsibilities.

Even though those these skills are necessary in all levels of the organization, they are only sufficient for first and second line chiefs. In later posts, I will present expanding sets of skills necessary for greater levels of structure.

Though it is not obvious at this level, I have also applied the principles of fractal analysis to my division of skills. At this level you can see how the various sub-skills are self-similar and are uniformly structured. At the higher levels you will see how I used this technique to map executive level skills. I call this technique conceptual-fractal-analysis since I am applying the principle of fractals to concepts rather then formulas. I learned this technique from Richard Tabor Greene in a class at the University of Chicago about transporting businesses accross cultural barriers. This is a great technique when trying to identify gaps in an organization or when trying to apply an organization's capabilities against a new problem.

As you can see, I do not favor leadership over management. They are both necessary. However, they must be kept in balance and they are used for two different purposes.

Hidden agendas!

A good answer (yeah!) to a question on LinkedIn.