I guess I like it so much becuase I agree with him:) Here is a brief excerpt:

“Number of executives I meet these days ask me, “is there is any one or few things I can do to find the edge so as to move from being good to great. Well, they did not address the question exactly in the way I have framed it, but all of them was some what related to this question. If you are also a concerned business executive may have a similar question. So, what can we do in times likes these to get ahead and get to the top of the game?

When people ask such question to me, in a way it bother me, for they assume the way to greatness is so simple that can be summarized easily and based on some quick fix solutions. It is proven time and again that the quick fix solutions may show temporary results, but they do not last long. Quick fix solutions only introduce changes at the peripherals, not a deep rooted change that last long.”

My web sleuth found my Alternatives to Downsizing article from 1996 just tucked away on my website.

He took complete responsibility for his actions. He didn’t say “mistakes were made” as many do, as if some grand anonymous force out there had made him sleep around.

He didn’t try to parse his way out of it as in “I never had sex with that woman.” He didn’t blame others, except for his brief tongue lashing of the paparazzi (and who could blame his for that?)He didn’t wreck a perfectly clear apology with endless paragraphs of gibberish (I think leaders use this tactic to try to bore their audiences into forgiveness.) But what he did was continually reminded us that he was responsible.

This won’t put it all behind him and he obviously knows that, but it could be a significant turning point in rebuilding the public’s trust in him as a role model.If he were a political or business leader, I might have advised him to have said what he said months ago. But he’s not running a company or a country, so his timing was perfect.

One of my clients told me that people needed to wake up. The old cradle-to-grave employment contract was over, so get used to it. It took awhile, but I started to believe what he said. I still didn’t like the human impact of downsizing, but I started to think that maybe serial monogamy was just the way things were these days. Perhaps it was new world.

My friend Wendy Mack made sure I saw the article in the recent issue of Newsweek titled Lay Off the Layoffs by Jeffrey Pfeffer (one of my favorite business writers.)

Here are some quotes from Pfeffer’s article:

“Much of the conventional wisdom about downsizing—like the fact that it automatically drives a company’s stock price higher, or increases profitability—turns out to be wrong. There’s substantial research into the physical and health effects of downsizing on employees—research that reinforces the seemingly hyperbolic notion that layoffs are literally killing people. There is also empirical evidence showing that labor-market flexibility isn’t necessarily so good for countries, either.”

He acknowledges that some organizations need to downsize just to survive (although he believes this may only postpone the inevitable in many cases. He goes on to say, “But the majority of the layoffs that have taken place during this recession—at financial-services firms, retailers, technology companies, and many others—aren’t the result of a broken business model.”

Pfeffer again:

“Layoffs don’t even reliably cut costs. That’s because when a layoff is announced, several things happen. First, people head for the door—and it is often the best people (who haven’t been laid off) who are the most capable of finding alternative work. Second, companies often lose people they didn’t want to lose. I had a friend who worked in senior management for a large insurance company.”

“Another myth: layoffs increase profits. Even after statistically controlling for prior profitability, a study of 122 companies found that downsizing reduced subsequent profitability and that the negative consequences of downsizing were particularly evident in R&D-intensive industries and in companies that experienced growth in sales. Cascio’s study of firms in the S&P 500 found that companies that downsized remained less profitable than those that did not.”

Cascio is the same Wayne Cascio’s who wrote the US DOL report. Pfeffer provides a link to Cascio’s book, Responsible Restructuring (2002). I suspect this book is as sound as the long out-of-print paper her wrote back in the mid-90s.

I urge you to read Jeff Pfeffer’s article and, if you are thinking of downsizing, get your hands on Cascio’s book right away.

That call got me thinking. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross identified stages of grieving in dying patients denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance or DABDA for short.)

So, shouldn’t we be worried if the leaders of an organization assume that the change they are about to embark on is a lot like death? Shouldn’t that be a tip-off that something is wrong with this change?

I’m sure that organization found someone who was delighted to tell the employees why they were just going through a natural process and once they realized that someone had moved their cheese, all would be OK. These “blame the victim” approaches to leading change have been around for quite some time – and they are dangerous. They make two deadly assumptions: 1. the leaders are always right, therefore all ideas that start from the top are good, and 2. people are pawns in the larger game and they just need to get used to it.

But, there are other assumptions that some leaders make: 1. leading organizational change requires the support, engagement, and leadership of people at all levels of the organization, and 2. people want to be involved in decisions that affect their lives, and 3. as adults, most can handle the truth about the conditions that make change a necessity.

In Scientific American Mind (March/April, 2010, pages 48 and 49,) an article busts the myth that DABDA accurately reflects the process that most dying people go through. Some skip some of the steps, others go through them in another order. DABDA is used to counsel and support loved ones of those who have died, but research shows that not everyone experience distress or depression when a loved one dies. Maybe it is time for change management experts and Human Resource departments to kill off DBDA. That should send them into denial.

When word started to come in about problems with their cars, they seemed to have forgotten their own way. If a problem had been spotted on an assembly line, a worker could have stopped that line until they could figure out what went wrong – and fix it. But, once the car was out on the highway, there didn’t seem to be a similar switch that would allow an employee to signal a problem.

When the public’s trust goes, it can go fast. And accusations that Toyota was slow to respond just compounds the mistrust.  Think about it, if you were about to buy a car for a son or daughter, would you seriously consider Toyota today? You’d probably check out Honda, maybe GM or Ford, or even Hyundai (a company that went from a joke to the maker of high-quality cars.)

It’s too soon to tell why the problem was allowed to persist at Toyota. In some companies it’s a cover-up. In others, the executives believe their own PR. The syllogism might go: We are Toyota, we are synonymous with quality, therefore we couldn’t be having these problems.

Here are some things Toyota should do to try to rebuild consumer confidence in their company.

1.  Fix the problems fast. And it looks like they are making a strong effort to do just that.

2.  Encourage independent testing groups to put the “fixed” cars through their paces. It won’t be enough for the company to say that they’ve fixed the problems and “now you can safely drive our cars again.” People need to hear this from sources they trust.

3.  Find out what consumers are saying. As the problems is corrected and independent groups attest to the safety of these vehicles, pay attention to blogs and chat rooms. Convene focus groups. This information, perhaps more than anything else, will tell you what you need to do next to rebuild confidence. . . But, there is a downside, if you Toyota executives still believe these problems are simply “customer satisfaction” issues like you did when gas pedals stuck on cars in Europe awhile back, you will misread the data and miss important information about what you must do to regain the public’s trust.

I do wish you well.

There were signs that this was going to be a bad marriage from the time they were dating. Many things ranging from refusing to promise fidelity to just shake-your-head items that make you wonder why she didn’t see him for what he was.

Organizations have those same blind spots.

Harley Davidson had huge quality problems. Loyal riders would joke that if you were going to ride a Harley you needed to buy two, one to ride and the other for parts. So, if Harley owners saw the problem, why didn’t the company see the problem? I heard an executive from the company talk about those days before they made a dramatic and hugely successful turnaround. He said, “The writing was on the wall, but we thought it was a forgery.”

The signs of trouble are usually there and writ large, if we’d only look at them. But leaders wait too long before acting on “bad” news.

How to avoid the Jenny Sanford problem: Listen to the people who ask, “What do you see in that guy?” Listen to the customers who make cynical jokes about quality. Listen to the blogs. I just did a Google search on the phrase “Dell Hell,” I got 28,700 responses. To Dell’s credit, they started to listen to the Dell Hell chats and started engaging those customers. But they waited a long time to do it. They could have addressed the customer service problems years before Dell Hell became a catch phrase. (I recall writing an actual put-it-in-an-envelop-letter to the CEO about a recurring problem I was having. I didn’t expect anything big, but I did expect a response. Apparently mail service from the fourth ring of hell is slow. So they lost a customer.)

She was hired to bring about change in a troubled school system.  Leading change can be tough in most organizations, but in DC Schools it can be an especially tough assignment. Many years ago, as part of a university consortium team, I did some consulting in DC schools. I found entrenched bureaucracy and systems that made it hard for teachers and administrators to do their jobs. I also found many talented and dedicated professionals –teachers and administrators — trying hard to make life better for the children they served. I worked with lots of people who were eager to find ways to make things better.

Even though many agree that some significant problems have lessened (e.g. less violence and crime in schools, greater availability of books and other educational materials, improvement in test scores,) the Chancellor’s approval ratings plummet.

And you could almost predict that her approval ratings might waver. She has had the courage to take on strong opponents. For example, she proposed raising teacher salaries but at the cost of less job-security. In other words, if you didn’t cut it as teacher, you’d be gone. As you might imagine, the Washington Teachers Union (WTU) was against this, but she received praise nationally from educational reform advocates. (According  to the Washington Post, contract talks with the teachers’ union “have sputtered since late 2007.)

In some instances, a good leader will polarize. It can go with the territory. But, I think her problem is bigger than that. She seems to seek out controversy. Either that, or she may be oblivious to the impact her words and actions can have. For example, last month she casually mentioned that some of the 266 laid-off teachers “had had sex with children.” After a furor broke over this remark, she said that one of those teachers had been accused of sexual misconduct.

I have a few modest suggestions:

Chancellor Rhee, stay strong. The DC school system is one of the worst in the nation. It needs reform. That’s why you were hired.

You appear arrogant. You may not be arrogant, but you come across that way. Through media reports, you appear to be one of those leaders who thinks he or she is “smartest guys in the room.” And you may be — but broadcasting that is not a particularly good way to build support. Find someone you trust who has the courage to say the emperor has no clothes on. This person could be invaluable to your success. He or she may pull at your sleeve the instant before you say something that you would regret the moment it came out of your mouth.

Go out of your way to build alliances. Most of us want the schools to succeed. Parents, teachers, administrators, politicians, and just-plain-citizens want DC Schools to be a great school system. Lots of people want to be in your corner. Here’s one thing you could do. The D.C. Council complains that you don’t comply with requests for information.   If the DC Council wants information, give it to them and ask if that’s what they were looking for. If they say no, then get them what they need. There seem to be many places where you should diligently purpose common interests. I know this will be hard, but I believe it will be worth it. For extra credit, you might try to find that common ground with the teachers’ union.

Be careful when you speak. As a nationally known public figure, you cannot afford off-the-cuff remarks. You just can’t. That’s why you might benefit from that kid in the Emperor’s New Clothes.

I want you to succeed. I truly do. I wish you well.

The problem is that Presidents, for as long as I can remember, have delivered veritable shopping lists of things of things they want to accomplish over the coming year. There is usually something in the list for everyone. “And for little Billy, a new bicycle.”  State of the Union night is the one night of the year that insomniacs can get a good night’s sleep. Just turn on the TV and let the President (any president) lull you into dreamland.

As a leader of change, listen to the speech tonight and see if it grabs you and makes you want to do something (other than reaching for the remote.) Corporate leaders, like Presidents, cover too many things when they are trying to influence their audiences. The ancient Roman orator, Cato the Censor, said, “Stick to the point and the words will take care of themselves.” And, you’ll note that Cato said point – not points.