My best wishes to you all for a wonderful new year!  I resolve to post more here!

Leslie

First:  a very moving short music video by my friend Sandy Wilbur called “We The People.” This piece not only weaves today’s children with those of the past and helps us remember  that we must protect freedom for each generation, but also the importance of helping our kids learn about our history and our fortunate we are.

Second:  a dialogue with another professional on “Linked-in” about the implications of new freedoms for one group on others (in this case increased rights for women). Yes, with new freedom comes responsibility.  In societies where the responsibilities are not assumed when freedom is granted, poverty and crime follow (look at the issues in Jamaica).  Our mindsets must change in order to absorb the changes in rights and change our behavior with them.  Our dialogue was in a family business conversation area and  part of the dialogue was around the importance of people to have the freedom to seek opportunities that are congruent with their dreams:  e.g. women to become leaders in the family businesses and first born sons to choose not to if that is not their dream.  The key is that gender (like race or sexual preference) not determine our destiny, but our dreams.  With dreams, come passion and energy which is necessary to make things happen.

Third:  a series of essays in the New York Times on the future of marriage, given the recent changes in NY laws allowing gay marriage.  The most telling remarks: that while marriage is sought by gays as a right and while upper middle class people are marrying in increasing numbers, marriage is less popular in less educated, less affluent parts of society today.  In other words, people are exercising the freedom not to marry.  One of the commentators noted that without the support of the family unit that comes traditionally with marriage, people depend on other social systems:  the government.

This takes us back to Sandy’s song, “We the People.”  It is imperative that we teach our children that freedom requires personal responsibility.  And teach by personal example, including voting, engaging each other in healthy governance and positive dialogue.

Happy July 4^th!

Sam Houston Lane III

Sam was a beloved and valued partner in the Aspen Family Business Group whom I have known for over 20 years.  Sam was more than a business partner, he was a dear friend and I counted his wife, Carol Ann and his kids as part of my extended family.  Sam had an infectious laugh, a love of great wine and food and an intellectual curiosity that helped to keep our conversations lively-no matter what the topic.  While Sam kept quite busy with his consultation practice, walking his dogs,  travel and visiting his grandchildren, he frequently would pick up the phone just to check in and say hello.  He died just before seeing our new book published.

I have often found that it helps ease the pain of grief when one can find a lesson in the death of a dear friend or relative. Sam’s lesson for me was about taking care of my own health.  There is much to love of live-to enjoy the beauty, the flavors,  the sounds and the curiousities.  But our time can be shortened unnecessarily when we don’t look at our own color, get the expert advice we need from our own doctors and hear the sounds of advice with clear ears and hearty curiosity. Shifting attention from engaging work and interesting hobbies to the mundane issues of weight control, exercise and check ups is not really very fun or typically compelling.  Unless it becomes clear that it is a matter of life OR death.

Sam has helped me to realize how suddenly it can be a matter of death; taking away our opportunity to smell the roses, eat the brie, taste the pinot noir and see the last sweet color of the sunset. I’ll take the challenge, Sam, to stay healthy and keep in mind all of the lessons you have shared in life and in death.

With the radical changes that are happening throughout the Middle East and Africa, many of our ways of understanding “order” in the world has changed.  I hope that the peaceful change that is happening in Egypt will result in a lasting democracy and will become a role model for governance throughout that part of the world.

I began thinking about how difficult it is to trust a new order. I thought I would share some of the thoughts I have had about what contributes to trust:

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO TRUST?

Communication:  which is open, honest, thorough and frequent

Congruence:  Between what one says and does; this is related to

Character: one’s integrity or moral qualities

Clarity:  Of roles, information, policies and practice

Consistency: Over time, in one’s behavior and adherence to core, stated values

Competence: The ability to actually do what one professes or commits to doing

Compassion: Seeking to understand the others point of view or behavior, rather than jumping to conclusions and judging

Collaboration:  The opportunity to work together over time and build a base of experience and communication that affords a valid assessment of one’s trustworthiness

Caring:  Because of a base of love or concern, I am committed to giving you the opportunity to earn trust and am intent upon maintaining the trust you have in me

Commitment: When we share commitment to the same goals, values, causes and/or organization(s), our sense of trust is heightened.

TRUST IS MULTIDIMENSIONAL

Two important concepts: First, trust in not a unidimensional phenomenon.  By “unidimensional” I mean that for most people, a person is not simply trustworthy or not trustworthy.  I may trust you to drive my car, but not to take care of my baby.  I may trust that you will pay back a debt to me, but not return my phone call.

I may trust that you would not intentionally deceive me, but not trust that you are precise with information. Intention and behavior are not always consistent: sometimes people make errors or accidentally harm us. As we evaluate trust, it is important to gather data about the situation, rather than jump to conclusions that may unnecessarily close doors for us in the process.

REGAINING TRUST

This relates to the second concept: it is harder to regain trust than to keep it. Once we suspect someone may have betrayed our trust, we often maintain a suspicious eye or vigilance in observing him or her.  When we do so, we more often look for evidence of further betrayal, rather than evidence of trustworthiness.  This process decreases the odds that we will find reason to trust people again.  How does it happen then?

FORGIVENESS

Regaining trust starts with an openness to forgive: compassion (on this side, there must be a willingness to trust). Secondly, if I feel betrayed, I must quickly raise the issue with the other party and find out if there was a misunderstanding or a true breaking of a trust.  If the other person takes responsibility (accountability) for his behavior that increases the odds that he can be forgiven and trusted again (i.e. demonstrating trustworthiness).  If you deny responsibility and/or discount my concerns, I am not likely to give you another chance.

Once the openness is there and the accountability acknowledged, consistency and congruency become important.  If I see that you are consistently living up to our agreement and that your verbal commitment is accompanied by behavior that supports it, my trust increases.  Having the opportunity to review progress assures that the trust builds. Exploring any issues or discrepancies as they arise allows the development of the necessary communication to support trust.

When I consider the sad loss of relationships, teamwork and even businesses I’ve observed, the lack of trust is very often at the bottom of it. Our personal integrity is essential to the trust others place in us. As we make decisions every hour of every day, it is important that we consider the impact our choices on our relationships and our future.  When I think about developing trust in new leadership, governments and constitutions, it is even a bigger challenge.

As I write a new newsletter (that should be mailed out and posted by the first of January) I realized that one of the tools that is most useful is that of Dialogue.  Rather than recreate a new piece on that, I decided to post a chapter from my first book (that is out of print) “The Best of the Human Side.”  Here it is:

Dialogue

Listen…

I do not know if you have ever examined how you listen,

it doesn’t matter to what

whether to a bird,

to the wind in the leaves,

to the rushing waters,

or how you listen in a dialogue with yourself…

If we try to listen we find it extraordinarily difficult,

because we are always projecting our opinions and ideas,

our prejudices, our background, our inclinations, our impulses;

when they dominate we hardly listen to what is being said.

In that state there is no value at all.

One listens and therefore one learns,

only in a state of attention, a state of silence

in which this whole background is in abeyance, is quiet;

then, it seems to me

it is possible to communication.¹

I have found that one of the most prevailing concerns about communication is how to constructively resolve conflict.  Most people will tell you that they hate conflict; many of us avoid it.  Yet conflict is merely a difference of opinion.  There are few relationships without differences.  Thus our ability to understand these differences and how they are formed is key to our ability to have healthy relationships.  The art of dialogue is one of the most useful practices I have found to help us understand the nature of our differences and a practical approach to resolving them.

In my most recent efforts to gain new understandings of teamwork and organizational effectiveness, I have been studying the concept and methodology of “dialogue.”  This section  shares some preliminary thoughts with you.  Personally, I am striving to create opportunities for true dialogue; and professionally I hope to assist my clients in their ability to establish dialogue in their organizations.

“Given the nature of global and institutional problems, thinking alone at whatever level of leadership is no longer adequate.  The problems are too complex, the interdependencies too intricate, and the consequences of isolation and fragmentation too devastating.  Human beings everywhere are being forced to develop their capacity to think together – to develop collaborative thought and coordinated action.”¹

As Isaacs points out, the increasing complexity of the world means that we are becoming more dependent upon each other to address or solve problems.  Our capacity to join forces and come u with synergistic approaches will perhaps be the most important factor for success – or even survival.  To me the heart of this is the ability to be truly “on the same wavelength” with others who offer a variety of perspectives, experiences and attitudes.  We need to communicate in such a way as to establish genuine openness, real understanding and shared assumptions.  In other words, to have a dialogue.

The Greek roots of “dialogue,” dia and logos, connote “meaning flowing through.”  So a true dialogue is a form of communication that yields a shared meaning.  As we communicate our own perspectives and, more specifically, our own assumptions, we create a pool of shared information.  For example, imagine a circle of people looking at an octagonal container in the middle of the circle.  The octagon is fully perceived only as each member of a dialogue shares his/her view of the container.  Since each sees only one or two sides of the container, it is not fully comprehended until all of their views are collected.  Once all the views are shared, a common picture is formed of the container and the meaning can be understood.

I am reminded of the Indian story about the six blind men touching an elephant.  Each feels a different part of the elephant and describe the elephant from their own point of view:  “The elephant is flat and thin and has stiff little hairs on one side,” said the blind man touching the elephant’s ear.

“No,” argues another blind man, who was feeling the elephant’s leg, “the elephant is tall and cylindrical and I can almost get my arms around him, like a moving tree trunk,” and so on.  Each man had an incomplete and erroneous picture of the elephant.  If they had collected their observations, their experience and the assumptions underlying their conclusions, they might have come up with a shared and more complete view of the elephant.

“Listening with my heart I find meaning.

For just as the eye perceives light and the ear sound,

the heart is the organ for meaning.”

The process of dialogue requires that we listen with our hearts as well as with our ears and heads.  We must be open to differing perspectives, rather than judgmental.  The more certain I am, the more difficult it is to explore meaning.  Dialogue can only occur in a safe environment where people feel comfortable questioning their own conclusions, exploring their own assumptions and openly listening to potentially diametrically differing views.  The challenge for most of us is to allow multiple points of view to be held in the conversation and still stay connected:  living with paradox.

The process of dialogue starts within ourselves.  In order to be open to develop shared assumptions, we must be aware of the assumptions underlying our own conclusions.  Thus the first step is to uncover our own assumptions.  This is generally referred to as “listening to the listener,” understanding our own mental models and/or determining the steps we took to come to a conclusion.  The second step is to question the assumption and allow that it may not be valid.  My assumption is that, in order to effect a dialogue, I must stay in a position of inquiring, rather than knowing.

I wrote the following poem to help me to remember this goal:

Stillness in me.

Hard to capture.

Breath-ful

quiets the chatter.

Sharing what comes through that breath

is what’s important.

It’s new; it’s me.

It’s focused

Where it should be.

Sharing our own assumptions, then, becomes the next step in creating the dialogue.  Much like a stew we might cook together in the kitchen, we have placed the onions in the pot and now await someone else to add the meat.  With each assumption placed in the “pot” we come close to understanding what might be the complete picture or “stew.”  As long as we don’t feel that our assumptions are ourselves (i.e., that we do not become overly attached to them and thereby defensive), we may shift our perspective and arrive at shared assumptions.  Like the stew which is more than and very different from the individual ingredients, our shared assumptions can become a new view that may be a novel solution and/or a basis for shared commitment and action.

“Dialogue’s purpose is to create a setting where conscious collective mindfulness can be maintained.”¹

Although it may seem patently obvious that having a dialogue would be advantageous, it is important to understand its potential.  As people learn to communicate in this manner, the quality of the conversation improves, creative solutions arise and commitment to common plans increases the probability of successful action.

My interest in dialogue arises from my work with highly conflicted situations in business teams, family businesses, etc.  I have found that people can become motivated to resolve conflicts if I help them to determine a common mission and to understand that they are interdependent.  If we move into a safe environment where people can reflect on and question the assumptions upon which they have based conclusions about one another, then openness and conflict resolution can occur.  My own experience has been mirrored by those doing more extensive work with dialogue.  For instance, seemingly intractable labor-management disputes have been resolved through a dialogue process.  Major progress in addressing a community’s health delivery problems has occurred through the dialogue process.  In Colorado, a community pooled the perspectives of hospital administrators, community activists, consumers, and county health officers to begin exploring their assumptions about healthcare delivery.  The dialogue process allowed them to let go of traditional adversarial positions and find a shared set of assumptions which guide further planning and improvements.  It is possible to move quickly to a sense of community utilizing the dialogue process.

My sense of dialogue as an emerging communication technology suggests that it may be a very subtle and powerful tool through which we can foster understanding, harmony and creativity.  It certainly warrants more study and well, dialogue!¹

Awards are not that important to me, generally.

This award was indeed a great honor.  To be recognized by one’s peers from around the world does suggest that one’s contribution to the field has had a significant impact and that is meaningful to me.

Receiving the Beckhard award is also special as Dick Beckhard was a significant force in both the family business field and the organizational development field, which was my first professional affiliation.  He was someone who shared of himself unselfishly, who was an inveterate learner in very untraditional ways and who was a man of many talents and interests.  To be compared to him by Kelin Gersick was indeed humbling.

The event was in Chicago which made it a bit more convenient for my daughter, Baleigh, to also honor me by being there.  She joined by husband, Jack, and friends in the organization for a lovely evening at the University Club in Chicago. A terrific evening and one I shall treasure!

Leslie with daughter, Baleigh and husband, Jack

Not the mega wealthy or those with fame or those whose business is serving God…..or those who have all three.

In today’s NY Times, Laurie Goodstein writes about the conflict in the family of Reverend Robert H. Schuller over the future of his megachurch and its leadership.  While we certainly do not have the “whole story” from this one article, there are some lessons that can be drawn from this part of the story:

1.  Charismatic entrepreneurs are very difficult to follow. Crystal Cathedral may be the nation’s first “megachurch” and it was built on the senior Rev Schuller’s charisma and vision in a time when people were drawn to a church that would reach them with a positive message through the airwaves and in their cars at the drive-in church. It’s hard to find “your place in the sun in the shade of the family tree” was true here.  Even though the younger Rev Schuller was annointed from the time he was young to be his father’s successor, he didn’t have the type of leadership that was needed to wow the audiences in the same way or to inspire his sisters.

2.  Enrolling the second generation in the support of a new leader is essential. While dad may be accepted by his family flock as the leader, a second generation leader does not necessarily have the same automatic trust and commitment from his or her siblings.  Afterall, they grew up together and the kids all remember each others’ foibles.  How can I trust my brother who wouldn’t mow the lawn the take care of our family business? A successor must be a leader who inspires his family as well as his employees and “customers.”  It appears that the younger Rev. Robert A. Schuller had not accomplished this.  He was quoted as saying:

“It boiled down to, they weren’t ready to accept my leadership,” he said of his relatives and some of the other board members of the cathedral. “And had they been, they wouldn’t be where they are today.”

3.  Succession requires reinventing the business for the times.  The strategy of using the airwaves was new when his father started “Hour of Power.”  With the advent of cable television, competition arose and his followers shrunk in half.  The senior reverend might be accused of having an “edifice” complex as part of his strategy was building huge, beautiful facilities designed by famous architects that were supported by mega numbers of donors. This worked for the first several buildings but not the last and the senior Schuller left his offspring and congregation with a $45 million debt.

The junior Schuller tried  some strategies, but without success.  The article noted:

“The younger Mr. Schuller envisioned using new technologies to expand the ministry’s capacities and reach a younger audience. The average viewer of “Hour of Power” is a 53-year-old woman. But some board members saw his high-tech strategies as vague and distracting.

Things fell apart when the younger Mr. Schuller tried to institute basic good governance rules used by many nonprofit organizations. He wanted to remove anyone with a conflict of interest from the board. That meant unseating some of his sisters and their husbands as well as his parents, who were also employees.”

Unfortunately, he didn’t come up with strategies that had the support of all of the important stakeholders, so that he didn’t have a chance to implement his new direction. Coupled with massive debt, the organization went into bankruptcy.   When he was displaced in his role by his sisters and brothers-in-law, he quit and is trying his new approaches on his own with his own son.

4.  It takes a special type of leadership to make the first-to-second generation succession work. The combination of collaborative leadership rather than charistmatic, the ability to define and execute a new strategy to meet a new generation of customers and to build the infrastructure that supports the growth stimulated by an entrepreneur  is difficult to find.  The second generation members of the family may not automatically have these extraordinary talents.  Sometimes, it requires importing talent from the outside.  In some families shared leadership is the answer.  The Schullers are trying an “office of the president.”  This type of leadership can work if there are clearly defined responsibilities, mutual trust, excellent communication and the other key players buy in.  It will be interesting to see whether this works for the Schuller family.

In conclusion, one of the daughters (who is not working in the family business) was quoted as saying:

“When you mix faith and fame and family, there’s room for a really toxic dynamic”

Amen.

The new movie by Walt Disney Pictures is a wonderful film about vision, determination and moving through the challenges of families in business!

As most of you know, Secretariat was the first horse in 25 years (and  one of  only 3 horses in the last 50+ years) to win the Triple Crown of Horse racing.  What the film helped us understand was the fortitude that one of his owners, Penny Chenery Tweedy, had to demonstrate in dealing with her family members, traditional attitudes toward women in the early 70s in Virginia and estate planning challenges.

A few lessons from the film for those of us interested in Family Businesses:

1.     Be Prepared:  Talk about the Difficult subjects around death before it happens! Being unprepared for the transition of assets at the time of death adds tremendously to the challenge of adaptation.  Penny and her brother, Hollia,  had no idea what her father’s estate tax burden would be and Christopher Chenery had apparently not done any planning, leaving them with insufficient liquidity to pay estate tax.  To her brother’s credit, he tried to engage in a dialogue about their father’s future and the future of the farm after their mother died.  This requires uncomfortable, bur necessary attention. They had major conflict at the same time they were mourning about how to handle the estate liabilities.

2.      Develop a shared vision. Penny and Hollis had differences about their vision of what to do with the farm and their prime asset, Secretariat.  Hollis felt the horse could be sold before the Triple Crown and give them the liquidity they needed to pay off the estate tax.  Penny had a vision that this horse would honor her father’s legacy and give her an opportunity to manifest her father’s message to her to have faith in herself and follow her passion.   The difference in their goals and vision put the siblings at odds and could have disrupted their relationship forever.

3. Determination plus careful research and discipline are ingredients lead to success. Penny had great odds against her.  She had a horse whose lineage did not suggest he could win at long distances.  Both she and her trainer saw something unique in this horse that suggested he might defy the odds.  She became determined.  But she did her research all along the way, finding out that one of her employees was cheating them; learning about which horse to go for in a coin-toss; finding out what trainer and which jockey would match her passion and determination. She also was prepared with the research when negotiating with powerful figures throughout the movie.  She became very focused and disciplined in her approach to her goal and risked a lot (the farm, her marriage and her relationship with her kids and brother) and it worked.

4. Direct, open communication is essential. In the movie, Penny demonstrated continuous, open  communication with all stakeholders.  She dutifully involved her father (despite his apparently increasing dementia), honoring him throughout.  When she got stuck and (painfully) couldn’t attend her children’s events, she phoned to talk to them, or to hear what was going on.  She did not shrink from giving and seeking feedback from those around her including her husband, her trainer and her key employee,  her father’s secretary.  Most of us shy away from being direct and that can lead to confusion and mixed messages.  Leading toward a vision requires us to communicate that vision and enroll followers in helping to achieve that.  Throughout the movie, Penny demonstrated a charisma and humor that gained her support for her vision. 

5. Keep the doors open, even when you disagree. In the movie, both her husband, Dave, and her brother disagreed with Penny’s strategy.  They reluctantly went along while she “risked the farm” and raced in the Triple Crown.  However, all three kept the door open to their relationships and in the end were there for each other.  Too often, when people disagree, they cut off the relationship and make it very difficult to restore civility later.

While I understand the movie took a few liberties with facts, a blog by Kate Tweedy (the daughter who was the protestor in the movie) suggest that the movie handled many of the true family dynamics with great accuracy and sensitivity. Hmmm…Accuracy and sensitivity:  good words to guide us in family communication.

I recommend the movie for its entertainment value as well as its lessons and inspiration.

Leslie Dashew

How The Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In

by Jim Collins

Amidst the desolate landscape of fallen great companies, Jim Collins began to wonder: How do the mighty fall? Can decline be detected early and avoided? How far can a company fall before the path toward doom becomes inevitable and unshakable? How can companies reverse course?  In How the Mighty Fall, Collins confronts these questions, seeking to offer hope to leaders that they can learn how to prevent decline and, if they find themselves falling, reverse their course. Collin’s research project—more than four years in duration—uncovered five step-wise stages of decline:

Stage 1: Hubris Born of Success

Stage 1 begins when people become arrogant, regarding success virtually as an entitlement and they lose sight of the true underlying factors that created success in the first place.  The loss of penetrating insight and a clear understanding what leads to (or interferes with success) allow people to fall off the train of success. “We will see hubris in bold, risky decisions that fly in the face of conflicting or negative evidence.” When leaders cease to realize that they are still at risk of falling, that luck plays a role, that they must still be careful, diligent and disciplined, they manifest the arrogance that can bring them down.

Stage 2: Undisciplined Pursuit of More

The development of arrogance is the key indicator of stage one.  Acting on the arrogance by growing beyond the actual abilities of the organization (based on an exaggerated sense of capability and infallibility) is the defining characteristic of stage two. Making “undisciplined leaps” into areas where they cannot be great or without the appropriate human resources to manage the growth are elements of this stage.  While many people feel complacency is a risk factor (and it can be), when the “great” fall, it is because they have more often tried to do more than they can manage.  “…big acquisitions, made out of bravado, rather than penetrating insight and understanding, can bring you down.”

Stage 3: Denial of Risk and Peril

While data begin to show that trouble is brewing and all is not good in the kingdom, the negative data is explained away, discounted or ignored.  Like the parable of the emperor who wears no clothes, everyone becomes fearful of telling him the truth that he is naked.

The disciplined collection and analysis of data that helped lead to good decisions prior to the downfall diminishes as is the open, thorough dialogue that characterizes highly functioning teams.  “When those in power begin to imperil the enterprise by taking outsized risks and acting in a way that denies the consequences of those risks, they are headed straight for Stage 4.”

Stage 4: Grasping for Salvation

Once again we see that those who fail, do not respond in a manner that is characterized by the disciplines of good management and judgment that characterized a climb to “great.”  Rather they seek a silver bullet, a savior, and a quick fix that can turn things around miraculously.  This is leadership characterized by panic or anxiety, rather than calm, careful analysis, planning and execution.  Those that come to this point and respond constructively are able to pull the company out of the spin downwards. Others look to a bold, untested strategy, a radical transformation a “game changing acquisition” or rearranging the deck chairs (on the Titanic) rather than turning the ship around. “The signature of mediocrity is inconsistency”

Stage 5: Capitulation to Irrelevance or Death

The continual struggle of stage 4 and the accumulation of issues, losses and despair over the first 4 stages catapult the formerly great company to its demise:  sell out or bankruptcy. Had the companies in stages 1-4 adhered to management disciplines anywhere along the line, they could have avoided Stage 5.  They could have turned the ship around if they had looked realistically at internal and external factors (data), applying rigorous analysis and carefully following a systematic approach to recovery (rather than untenable growth, denial of limitations and issues, grasping at miracles or saviors).

Collins:  “I’ve come to see institutional decline like a staged disease:  harder to detect but easier to cure in the early stages, easier to detect but harder to cure in the later stages.  An institution can look strong on the outside but already be sick on the inside, dangerously on the cusp of a precipitous fall.” (p. 5)

Some thoughts of significance in the book or on the book:

• One of the biggest takeaways may well be for external board directors (or owners of closely held businesses). The symptoms and behaviors of leadership in an organization that is in decline are extremely valuable markers for board members

• Other markers which observers of ventures use to identify potential fall from great include:

1. Dissatisfied customers (who are not getting the service, product quality, timeliness or price)
2. Increasing receivables (customers are not able or willing to pay)
3. Mounting debt (from unhealthy acquisitions)
4. Rapid liquidity drain

• Collin’s one marker above all to indicate the fall from grace is the declining number of seats filled by the right people. People who know what they are to accomplish, (what they are accountable for) are passionate about doing it and know how.

• Overcoming denial meant looking carefully at data.  Facing reality head on is the only way to turn the ship around.  That includes gross margins, and debt to equity.

• The successful companies in his comparison were able to manage an important paradox:  a dynamic tension between continuity and change.  This is particularly important in family owned businesses where continuity represents a legacy; and change represents updating processes, products and tools to address the ever-changing business environment.

The interesting observation about how this balance was achieved was that the successful companies continually asked “why” and explored “how” they have been successful and then understood the conditions in which old practices lead to success and when they need to be changed because they are no longer effective.

• Collins’ final message:  Maintain a firm hold of your core purpose,  the principles and values that define your culture, and go forward with disciplined action and faith, adapting the strategies and tactics needed in difficult times and you can prevail. This is good leadership.

I have developed a team assessment scale based on his observations that I would be happy to share.

Just ask!