Audio Tidbits

Have you ever taken a trip on the success train? If not, you are in for a real treat. If you have made the journey with Tom and his friends before, you will discover that a second trip on the success train is even better than your first. Press play, climb aboard and enjoy the ride.

Jacobsen, Ian. Leadership at Your Fingertips: Proven Ways to Handle Your Challenges. Los Altos: Westchester Publishing Company, 2003.

When you hire, you hire a whole person. It is naive to assume that people leave the rest of their life on the doorstep as they come to work. Organizations need to be prepared to help employees deal with the challenges they face off the job, too, in order for them to be effective on the job.

Whenever two or more people work together, conflict is inevitable. Conflict can be healthy when it is a competition of ideas. It can be destructive when it is a conflict between people. Thus, it is essential for any organization to have an agreed-on way to deal with conflict, and for people to be trained to use the system. Such a process is more easily created and installed before a conflict arises than in the heat of a conflict.

A leader is not a leader without people to lead. Leaders are entrusted to serve the people they lead. Leadership is a privilege earned through being credible to the people one leads and represents, and competent to resolve the issues. For people to commit them self to you is an act of faith. In other words, "followers" need to have faith and trust in you in order to commit themselves fully.

Yet, there is a tendency for people to build organizations piecemeal as an amalgam of available spare parts when what they really need is a unified structure to create a total system. Even copying the best practices of other organizations typically falls flat. …

The role of leaders is to inspire and enable people to achieve common goals while earning their respect, trust and support.

Clarify and confirm roles, responsibilities, quality standards, authority, ground rules and expectations. Make sure that everyone is "singing off of the same song sheet.”

Be authentic Come across as genuine, sincere, open, trusting and trustworthy; self-assured without being conceited.

Passion If you don't have passion for something, how can you foster it in the people you lead? Passion is an intense, compelling emotional drive, "fire in your belly," for something you believe in. It cannot be feigned or bought. It has to be authentic. It is a quality of the heart that emanates from your values and beliefs. It is the application of your purpose in life to a goal with which you identify strongly. With passion, you conquer the obstacles in your path. When you have passion for your pursuit, other people who share your values, beliefs and goals want to join you.

Do you really need passion to be a leader? Yes! Leadership is the art of inspiring and enabling people to perform at their best to achieve a common goal. It is not just a care-taking function. It is getting them to buy in to a vision of a better future and leading them on a journey to the goal. … Passion separates the extraordinary from the ordinary.

Chapter 5 - The Intervention Set

At this point, we have combined an understanding of the crisis state with an insight into people in crisis. We have learned how to assess a crisis, including ideas about its possible causes and effects. We know how to involve the individual in the process of understanding what is happening, what happened, and what is likely to happen. We are now ready to help the individual move toward crisis resolution because we have an idea about the possible causes and consequences of his specific crisis. A superficially simple point is that crisis resolution necessarily involves either changing those factors, situations, or circumstances causing the crisis, or modifying the possible effects or outcomes of the crisis.

CRISIS REDUCTION

Recall our earlier example in which Dick learned of his wife’s marital infidelity. Were we not to intervene, the outcome might be that Dick could pack his bags and leave. As we look at that crisis, we see that the precipitating event (Dick’s learning of his wife’s infidelity) is not amenable to influence or change. There is nothing that can be done to change that situation. However, our intervention can lead to an alternative and less destructive outcome. For example, through discussion and understanding, Dick may realize that “leaving home immediately” may be a less desirable option than staying at home until he and his wife work out other arrangements. This does not mean that he necessarily will or should reconcile with his wife. It only means that he stays at home until a better and less destructive plan can be worked out. This enables Dick to avoid the possible “snowball” effect of leaving now.

As a further example, suppose the crisis involves a teenager who has left home and is “tripped out” on drugs. As we think about his predicament with him, we learn that his leaving home was precipitated by a serious argument with his parents over curfew hours. We became sufficiently involved with the teenager and his crisis so that we both understand that the curfew precipitated the crisis, and we have explored the possible consequences of being away from home and “tripping out” on drugs. Intervention might be directed toward these undesirable consequences or effects of the crisis. We may use the crisis communication skills (discussed in a later section of this text) to “talk him down” from his bad trip. At the same time, we might encourage the teenager to consider the option of returning home and accepting the curfew and at the same time, with his permission, talking with his parents about the possibility of counseling or guidance for the family. In crisis intervention, our goal is to modify or change the effects or outcomes of the crisis, modify or change situations or conditions precipitating the crisis, or achieve some “change mix” in both causes and outcomes.

How much change is required? It is important to remember that our intervention needs to promote only enough change in either causes or consequences to decrease the now potential and/or to increase the self-resolution factor. Generally, our intervention does not resolve or eliminate the conflict between the individual and his total situation. More probably, it will lead only to reducing the crisis state to the conflict state. A crisis is an emergency. Crisis intervention removes the emergency dimension of the situation. In this sense, crisis intervention is a first aid or symptomatic relief procedure.

Understanding that the goal of crisis intervention is the modification of the precipitating event and/or the reduction or elimination of undesirable consequences or outcomes is difficult for most newcomers to crisis intervention to grasp. Our natural tendency is to feel a responsibility to resolve or remove the conflict existing between the individual and his total situation.

You may know about Dr. Pepper but likely do not know about Dr. Pepper's First Principle. If you are open to a tip about life and living in the real world. Dr. Pepper's First Principle is one you will not want to miss. Press play and learn.

I came across an audio essay of sorts focusing on Love and Power. I have included it here but need to let you know that the audio quality is less than optimal. It sounds like I may have been talking in a tube. It’s not terrible but not great either. If you are willing to tolerate the audio, I think you may find the essay interesting. If not, please skip it and check out some of the other episodes of the podcast.

You might suppose that losing your temper is something you shouldn’t do but really can’t help. It’s just one of those things. How wrong you would be.

Since you are a person who values doing whatever you do with style, on purpose, every time, losing your temper would be a totally no class thing to do. You just wouldn’t do it.

That’s why I have made this tutorial on getting angry for you. Get angry if you must, but at least do it with style. Press play and learn how.

Do you know about Hogfare? That’s welfare of sorts for hogs and those who spend their time raising hogs. It’s a generic kind of welfare program that includes other crops and farmers but is nonetheless free money. Please hit play and hear my personal point of view on Hogfare.

Chapter 4 - The Assessment Set

Crises are not always what they seem to be. For example, Michelle is in what might be considered a suicidal crisis, that is, she might kill herself if something is not done. To the casual observer, it may seem that the “possible suicide” is the crisis. Of course, Michelle’s killing herself is the “potential” of the crisis. But it is not the crisis itself. The crisis exists in the temporary and serious interaction problem between Michelle and her situation.

Wanda’s anger is almost rage like. “That bastard—my husband—can’t think that he can treat me that way and that I’ll just sit around and do nothing. He’ll find out that I’m not just that quiet little mouse he thinks he married. I’m going to do it this time. I won’t stand for it. He can’t do that and get away with it.”

What did Wanda’s husband do? What is she going to do? From her initial angry comments, we are unable to answer either question. Nonetheless, considering how angry she is, we get a sense that her actions may not work out very well. Within those actions lies the now potential of the crisis. Whatever her husband did seems to have precipitated the crisis. We can see, then, that Wanda is between the precipitating event and acting out the now potential. For her, though, the crisis is now. Her present interaction (with you) is the first focal point. Your assessment of her crisis will expand to include both the precipitating event and the now potential. You will look at possible causes and possible cumulative effects. Gradually, you can develop a picture of her crisis in a careful and caring way. Nonetheless, starting where Wanda is now and expanding your understanding from there allows you to assess her crisis effectively, gives emphasis to your “now” relationship with her, avoids the possibility of oversimplifying the crisis, on the one hand, or seeing it as more complex than it really is, on the other. You can help Wanda both understand and deal with her crisis as it really is. …

CRISIS FOCUS

Thus far, we have located the conflict within the interaction between the individual and his total situation. We have determined that it has a high now potential and a low self-resolution factor, justifying our intervention. We have asked, “What happened,” and are developing an understanding of the precipitating event. Our picture of the crisis is taking on form and content. We are ready to consider the assessment set. From this point on, crisis intervention is unlike more traditional forms of counseling and therapy. Traditionally, we want to know as much as possible about the person; his total situation; his “now,” “then,” and “when”; and as many other related factors, situations, conditions, circumstances, and events that possibly concern the individual and his situation now. Our “picture” needs to be as complete and as detailed as possible. To achieve this level of understanding requires long-term interaction between therapist and “patient” as well as a high level of skill and training on the part of the “therapist.”

In crisis intervention, our focus is considerably more narrow, centering sharply and clearly on the crisis itself. This point can hardly be overemphasized, and as a test of crisis focus, we should always consider these questions.

1. Specifically, what is likely to get worse?

2. How bad might it get?

3. If things get worse, what is the potential effect and on whom?

4. Why do we think the individual or someone else in the crisis will not be able to deal with it?

If we can adequately and clearly answer these four questions, we may conclude that we have clear crisis focus. Crucial to effective intervention, then, is maintaining that clear focus throughout the crisis intervention process. Establishing and maintaining this crisis focus enab...

For this episode of Audio Tidbits Podcast, I have nothing for the blog readers. The whole nine yards goes to the podcast listeners. Be patient if you are mainly a blog reader. Curiosity, fake news, snake oil may return, are likely to return; but just not this time. But if you are a podcast listener, hit play and enjoy.

Are you a leader or striving to become a leader? If so, it is important to identify your leadership style and to be aware of why you prefer a particular style. As becomes clear, there are alternative and distinct styles and each has its strengths and limitations. The better you understand your style, the more effective you are as you exploit the strengths of your style while compensating for its limitations.

Top dog leadership: If this is your style, you value a high level of personal control over and direct management of your followers. You work best with very cooperative followers and have low tolerance for non-compliance. You run a tight ship. Your followers typically defer to your perspective and are eager to do things your way. They tend to compete for your approval and may prioritize getting your blessing over getting the job done.

Lead dog leadership: You are a visionary who sets the organizational course. You reject use of power and control, placing your faith in the good will and principled behavior of your followers. You favor followers who function well with minimal supervision and direction and who naturally see the validity of and value in following your vision. Your style is an excellent fit for kindred spirits but is less compatible for those who may occasionally question your vision or who desire more structure and guidance. Your followers may tend to separate into the consonant majority and the small but dissonant minority.

Task leadership: Your strength is in getting the job done and depends on having qualified followers who are ready to work. Your followers are expected to bring the necessary expertise to each task and efficiently handle their piece of the project. This works especially well for followers who are expert at what they do and neither need or want direct supervision or involvement beyond their immediate tasks. It works less well for followers whose expertise may not be an exact fit with the current requirement, who value understanding how what they do fits in with the success of the larger organization, or who value social contact and interaction. It also may be less effective in the event the various elements of the enterprise experience minor to major disruption or variance from expectation. …

Technical leadership: You know what needs done and how to do it. As the resident expert, your followers need only follow your instruction and direction. Your style is a particularly good fit for inexperienced followers who are eager to improve their skills and demonstrate their value to the organization. It also works well for more experienced followers who are comfortable deferring to superior knowledge and expertise. It may work less well for followers who value more autonomy and want to become experts in their own right, for those who value independence.

Motivational leadership: Although you may not be especially charismatic, even a small measure of charisma adds to followers’ attraction to you and to their desire to align. Your verbal and interpersonal presence are compelling and interject energy and “want to” as your followers coordinate their energy, interests, and aspirations with yours. This works well for motivating less engaged followers but may pull weaker and less centered followers into blindly following, with a minimal sense of consequences or personal responsibility.

Values leadership: Your strength is in showing followers why what they and you do is important, why it matters. This works well for followers whose personal views and priorities are already near alignment with yours. You have a knack for encouraging followers deeper into the fold. Alternatively, followers who are more diverse shy away from your leadership and over time, your organization tends to become more and more homogenized.

THE QUIZ:

Although a few leaders may be restricted to one or more of the six ...