Saturday, September 29, 2012

Winning, When It Gets Physical.

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .








A direct one-on-one physical confrontation is the last resort in a commander's playbook, but if the circumstances are such that you perceive that a prospective opponent is putting you at a clear and present danger for a physical battering, or worse, there are two keys to dealing with the situation:

1) The element of complete surprise (your opponent doesn't even know that you are about to take action -- it is neither in your eyes nor in your physical posture), so he doesn't feel or prepare for the attack to come;

2) Use devastating and rapid force. A real fight doesn't last for five or ten minutes, as in a martial arts movie sequence. It lasts less than a minute, and the first move or moves makes/ make all of the difference.

The best example I've ever witnessed was when a fairly small, well-dressed fellow mistakenly walked into a biker bar to ask for directions (this occurred in the pre-GPS era) -- presumably.

He stood between bar stools and tried to get the bartender's attention, accidentally brushing ever so slightly against one of the seated fellows on his right. The seated fellow called the visitor a vulgar name and threatened to "do something" to him.

The visitor apologized, as if corrected and non-violent, and the seated fellow insulted him further and started to slowly rise from his bar stool.

Without any warning, and without any hesitation, the visitor used his right hand to push (propel, actually) the probable attacker's face, via the back of his head, directly down against the bar. I remember the sound to this day. I also remember that the visitor was smart enough to make a hasty (but not quite running) exit for the door while everybody at the bar was still in a state of shock. It was clearly the best example of personal self-defense that I had ever seen.

It was a complete surprise, and the amount of force, and speed with which it was applied, didn't give the would-be bully a chance to fight at all -- from where I was seated (at a booth with two friends) we watched in awe as the the tough-guy, fell down onto the floor -- momentarily unconscious, with a face that would likely need a great deal of reconstructive surgery.

Some tags, keywords, search terms and labels for this post: self-defense, physical violence, addressing a threat, Krav Maga, Jiu Jitsu, martial arts, self-defense tactics, hand-to hand combat, real fighting, subduing a bully, addressing confrontations, the element of surprise, lethal moves, deadly force, The Taking Command Blog, best self defense moves, improvised weaponry,

Physical action is a last resort for a commander. But where self-defense requires it, he or she must act quickly (without telegraphing any intent), and with fast and furious force -- the first move must be the last.

Douglas E. Castle for The Taking Command Blog


TAKING COMMAND!

View DOUGLAS E. CASTLE's profile on LinkedIn

Douglas E Castle
All Blogs & RSS Feeds

Share this page
Contact Douglas Castle
Follow Me on Pinterest


Sunday, September 23, 2012

Conflicting Agendas Are Opposing Forces

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .







Conflicting agendas are opposing forces, and an experienced commander or leader realizes that these conflicts (whether they are hidden agendas or adamantly-stated contentions) will create a situation of encumbered ability [in the best of cases] and of complete immobility [in the worst case].

A leader bases his or her campaign or drive on finding areas of commonality, where agendas amongst all participants intersect significantly enough that every participant is more heavily invested in the interests which unite them to the group’s stated purpose or mission than the differences which separate them. If these differences are too great, or if these differences prove to be in direct opposition or conflict, the team effort will invariably fail, and the mission will not be accomplished.

A leader or commander has an obligation at the outset of a mission to determine: whether or not there are competing or conflicting agendas or objectives, to identify them, to isolate each one (and determine the potential damage which it may do) and to state his or her findings openly and candidly, in order to give the party or parties at conflict the opportunity to either acquiesce or to depart the team.

Barring either of these possibilities, the leader has three possible means of addressing the situation prior to proceeding with the campaign objective.

1) To persuade the recalcitrant party through intelligent argument and negotiation;

2) To remove the recalcitrant party;

3) To abort the mission.

Most leaders do not have the luxury of the third option, and in practice, the second option is generally prevalent.

To cite a practical example from the landscape of business:

Say that you have an acquaintance (a professional of some sort) who has a client, and your acquaintance refers this client to you. At the outset, your acquaintance feels that he is serving his client through the ‘innocent’ referral, and your company is happy to have the opportunity to serve a new customer.

If that customer begins making demands upon your company which would cause you to either 1) deviate from your chartered objectives, or 2) lose money in the process of appeasing his or her wants and needs, you will be forced to decline the engagement, since your first allegiance must be to your company and its stakeholders.

However, your acquaintance may have a greater interest in keeping his or her client satisfied regardless of the consequences to your company. He or she may try to persuade you to take a loss, compromise your objectives or think of his or her political, social or career interests as more important than your company’s needs. He or she is actually demanding that you make a sacrifice, at your expense, for his or her benefit.

In this situation, the only course to follow is one where you explain to both the referred customer, and to the referring professional that the your company is unwilling to take on the customer’s prospective business because it is either not in conformity with your business model (or mission), or because it would cause your company to incur a loss which would be damaging to you, your company and your company’s stakeholders. And then you must peaceably part ways.
---------------

A commander understands that the successful achievement of a goal or profitability is more important than the ballast and burden imposed by conflicting agendas and opposing forces. A commander also understands that conflicts are issues which must be expediently identified, addressed and resolved. The longer the time to resolution, the more damage incurred.

In order to accomplish anything, all agendas of all parties must be in alignment. Anything else results in either chaos or immobility, neither of which is tolerable in prosecuting a campaign or in running a profitable business.

Douglas E. Castle for The Taking Command Blog, The Internationalist Page Blog and The Braintenance Blog.

Some tags, keywords, search terms, research items, categories and labels for your further reference include:
conflict resolution, hidden agenda, conflicting agendas, team leadership, The Taking Command Blog, negotiation, achieving objectives, priorities, business, decision making, sacrifices, compromises, immobility, Blogs By Douglas E. Castle, leadership, hard choices, taking rapid action, politics in business, referrals, relationships, networking, cutting your losses.

As an end note, and generally speaking the person who asks you to make a sacrifice so that he or she may reap a benefit is not truly your ally. -DC




TAKING COMMAND!

View DOUGLAS E. CASTLE's profile on LinkedIn

Douglas E Castle
All Blogs & RSS Feeds

Share this page
Contact Douglas Castle
Follow Me on Pinterest


Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The Loneliest Leader - The Investigative Journalist Or Reporter

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .





The written piece which follows was excerpted from a newsletter sent by Truthout, a decidedly "progressive" and partial organization with what one would consider to be a 'liberal bias' in terms of its thrust.

I believe that in my role as an author and as a commander, I should look to every political extreme, no matter how far out on the fringe that it may seem, as a routine function of my professional existence -- as I have said in The Global Futurist Blog and in The Internationalist Page Blog, "What may seem absurd or extremist today may well become tomorrow's status quo."

Political considerations notwithstanding, this is a piece about the personal toll taken by assuming the job of being the loneliest kind of leader - an investigative reporter or journalist.

 Not only do you have to unearth things that frighten you and display them in the naked critical light of day, but you are also the messenger;

and the news that you provide, if negative, generally gets associated with and occasionally blamed on the messenger. The article excerpt, which is very well-written follows...

####

When I tell people what I do for a living, the most common response is, "But isn't it depressing???" My response: "Of course!"

Grappling with the news every day is an emotional sky-dive with a rickety parachute. But for each of us on Truthout's staff, it's a jump we must take.

When Truthout reporter Mike Ludwig told me he wanted to cover the brutal "gas rush" that has brought a fracking epidemic upon Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania, it was because he felt compelled to do so: he grew up in Ohio, and - watching his childhood stomping grounds fill up with fracking rigs - he couldn't simply stand by. Truthout's lead investigative reporter Jason Leopold has described his decade-long pull to report on the horrors of Guantanamo: "There's something about the crimes committed by the Bush administration in our name that haunts me." And a couple of weeks ago, after watching a gaggle of corporate apologists squawking about the greed of public schoolteachers on a local Chicago news station, I couldn't help staying up half the night to hammer out a column in defense of the teachers' rights and those of their students.


Truthout's content relations editor, Leslie Thatcher, once put it this way: "While our task will never be completed, neither may we ever desist." We can't not do this work. It's not because we love to wallow in the murk of disaster and political frustration. It's because we believe ardently that a more equitable, more humane world is possible, and we must expose the murk in order to climb toward that brighter future.

You, our community, are our partners in this journey toward justice, because you care too much to sit idly by.


####

One of the greatest motivators for leadership is the existence of a problem which must be solved for the benefit of that leader and for all of Humanity, as a whole. Every investigative reporter or journalist is a leader, without support troops, and facing life-threatening perils as well as emotionally-devastating truths every single day.

The greatest commanders not only have their respective missions -- but they are also champions of Humanity, compelled by an obsession to do what they believe is truly right.

Douglas E. Castle for The Taking Command Blog


TAKING COMMAND!

View DOUGLAS E. CASTLE's profile on LinkedIn

Douglas E Castle
All Blogs & RSS Feeds

Share this page
Contact Douglas Castle
Follow Me on Pinterest


Wednesday, September 05, 2012

Letting The 'Crowd Effect' Rule You - Facebook's Flop

Share this ARTICLE with your colleagues on LinkedIn .






By letting the sweeping opinion of the crowd rule you, or in buying into any idea or course of action pushed by the momentum of the either ecstatic or depressed 'mob mentality,' you are delegating your decision making criteria and authority to a ship of fools. There is much to be said for making your important decisions based upon your own analysis in a quiet environment -- especially if you are brighter than the median intelligence of the crowd members. Don't 'average your intellectual and emotional IQ down.' By the way, if you are reading The Taking Command Blog, the odds are quite high that you are of significantly more than median intelligence. A wonderfully relevant example of a "You can't lose on this deal -- I'm getting in. How 'bout you?" is the recent failure of Facebook's eagerly awaited stock offering (IPO) to sputter in the fiscal gutter.

Here is a fascinating extract from an article regarding the Titanic-like Facebook investment stock price collapse from Business Insider and author/commentator Henry Blodget. Enjoy the read, and then come back here where we'll be serving coffee and desserts in the basement...
  
It's Becoming Clear That No One Actually Read Facebook's IPO Prospectus Or Mark Zuckerberg's Letter To Shareholders

As Facebook's stock continues to collapse, the volume of whining is increasing.
Four months ago, you will recall, Facebook was viewed as "the next Google." Now, with no major change in the fundamentals, it's viewed as an over-hyped disaster. Meanwhile, there is ever-louder grumbling that 26-year-old Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is in over his head and should be relieved of command.
As I listen to all this whining, I have a simple question:
Didn't anyone even read Facebook's IPO prospectus?
The answer, I can only assume, is "no."
Because if anyone had read the Facebook IPO prospectus, they would have learned, among other things, the following:
  • Facebook's growth rate was decelerating rapidly.
  • Facebook's user-base was rapidly transitioning to mobile devices, which produce much less revenue.
  • Facebook's operating profit margin was already an astounding 50%, which suggested it had nowhere to go but down.
  • Facebook's CEO had a nearly unprecedented amount of control over the company.
  • Facebook's CEO had set up this astounding level of control intentionally. Mark Zuckerberg knew all about how impatient public-market shareholders are. And he set up the whole company so he would never have to pay attention to their whining.
  • In the 9 months following the IPO, insiders would be free to sell more than 2 billion shares of Facebook that they had been holding for years.
  • Facebook was going public at an astoundingly high price for a company with these characteristics—about 60-times the following year's projected earnings, in a market in which other hot tech companies like Apple and Google were trading at less than 15-times. [Read more]
---------------

Following the crowd is a mixed behavior with its roots in the complex genetics of species survival as well as in the established need (read Abraham Maslow recently?) to be accepted amongst one's peers.

Simply stated, when you follow the mob, you are simply not acting as a leader. You have surrendered your power of independent discernment to a group of strangers, and will have demonstrated, whether your gamble proves wrong or right, that you are neither strong, nor a true commander.

Making your own decisions as a leader is a lonely business. But it is a calling which draws both the best and the worst among us. For the sake of your employees, your constituents, your troops, your team and for Humanity in general, I would prefer it if you were one of the best among us.

Douglas. E. Castle for The Taking Command Blog and for The Daily Burst Of Brilliance Blog












TAKING COMMAND!

View DOUGLAS E. CASTLE's profile on LinkedIn

Douglas E Castle
All Blogs & RSS Feeds

Share this page
Contact Douglas Castle
Follow Me on Pinterest

BLOG ARCHIVE

Bookmark and Share