Yesterday a high school student in Gardena, CA brought a loaded gun to school in his backpack. During the third period class he dropped the backpack on a desk, causing the gun to discharge. Two 15-year-old students were wounded, one critically.

As the story unfolded, I listened to the commentary on NPR, where Patt Morrison was facilitating a conversation among her guest experts, a reporter on-site at the locked-down school, and listeners calling in with their opinions. The focus of the discussion was on the deficiencies of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s measures to keep weapons out of the schools, and on the question of whether the parents of students who take weapons to school should be held accountable for their children’s actions. In the midst of this raging debate, Ms. Morrison took a call from Daniel, a recent high school graduate, who changed the direction of the conversation completely. In essence he said, “Everyone is talking about keeping weapons out of the schools. How come no one is talking about why kids feel the need to bring them to school in the first place? Why did that kid feel he needed a gun to protect himself?” He then went on to talk about what it’s like to be a student who feels unsafe in his own school, day after day.

Daniel’s question was right on target. While others had been focusing on the symptoms highlighted by the unfolding incident, he went right to the heart of the matter, which was the “disease,” or the problem that gave rise to the symptoms. All the speakers to that point had been talking about contingent actions – i.e., how to address the aftermath of the problem – such as what to do when students take weapons to school, how thorough security screenings should be, and who is to blame if weapons get by those systems. Daniel, on the other hand, brought the attention to preventive actions – i.e., creating safe environments in schools so students don’t feel the need to bring weapons to protect themselves.

The nature of the conversation described here occurs far too often in organizations – and in our personal lives. That is, we tend to focus on symptoms instead of on the issues or problems that gave rise to them. Often it’s much easier to identify contingent actions to take when the symptoms pop up than it is to take the time and make the effort to delve into the issues so that we can develop effective preventive measures. The fact is that contingent actions are short-term solutions, and they come into play only after the damage has been done. Though preventive actions are more time consuming, in the long-run they mitigate or obviate the need for contingent actions – and, importantly, they remove obstacles to success.

Take a look at some of the issues you’re dealing with right now, personally or professionally. Then ask yourself whether you’re focusing on resolving those issues directly or merely addressing their symptoms.

© 2011 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

Falling back into a defensive posture is typical of organizations in all sectors that are faced with volatility and uncertainty. Especially in economically challenging times, many leaders tend to retreat from the storm rather than head resolutely into it, seeking the opportunities it provides. Here’s why: their limiting beliefs and expectations cause them to think and act in very narrow, “safe,” comfortable ways instead of enabling them to view the organization’s potential as expansively as possible and act accordingly. This perspective constrains the organization’s ability to optimize its available talent and delight its customers. While retreating from the storm is a very human reaction, it can have deadly consequences – e.g., people and organizations become paralyzed with fear, focusing on the myriad of “What if…?” questions instead of asking “How can we…?” When the organization’s perception of its potential is limited, the value it offers is a fraction of what it is capable of providing – i.e., its true potential. Here is one example of the dramatic difference between the perceived potential and the true potential of a women’s shelter:

Perceived potential: Provide temporary services to women who have been abused

True potential: Break the cycle of poverty that traps women who are abused

Here are six steps leaders can take to ensure that their organization lives up to its true potential:

1. Ditch the “survival” mentality.
Organizations whose leaders fail to do this may survive, but they cannot possibly thrive because the leaders are seeking the wrong outcome.

2. Create a crystal clear “big picture.”
The “big picture” is the impact the organization will make. To help identify this impact correctly, answer this question: “How will your clients or customers be better off when the organization is acting in alignment with its true potential?”

3. Communicate the “big picture” widely.
Leaders must operationalize the vision – i.e., describe in detail what it looks, sounds, feels, tastes, smells like. All stakeholders need to understand what the “big picture” means for them personally so they can understand fully what their roles must be.

4. Make the first sale to yourself.
Not only must leaders fully embrace the big picture, they truly must believe the organization has a moral imperative to provide its value to people who desperately want and need it.

5. Align all people, programs, processes, and systems to the “big picture.”
The infrastructure must support the vision. Focus relentlessly on the “big picture” when making decisions, setting priorities, and allocating resources. Things that do not contribute to achievement of the vision should be jettisoned.

6. Celebrate success.
Identify realistic measures and guideposts that enable stakeholders to recognize both progress and achievement. Keep the momentum going by appreciating efforts to live up to the organization’s true potential.

© 2010 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.

How would you like to increase the likelihood that your employees will be satisfied with their compensation and their jobs, and to decrease the chance that they will leave the organization? New research suggests that achieving these outcomes can be as simple and as low- or no-cost as treating job candidates well during the job offer negotiation process.

Researchers examined job candidates’ perceptions of two types of value: subjective and economic. Subjective value included candidates’ feelings about the outcome of the negotiation, themselves, the negotiation process, and the relationship among the negotiators. Economic value was defined as the total compensation package plus the value of any additional concessions made by the employer. The researchers found that the subjective value was more important in determining the three outcomes listed above than the economic outcomes gained during the negotiation. In fact, the economic value achieved was not significantly associated with these outcomes at all.

To learn more about this study and to read five suggestions about how to conduct job offer negotiations that lead to the long-lasting positive employee attitudes, I invite you to read my article Job Offer Negotiations: Setting the Stage for Long-term Job Attitudes. And let me know what you think!

© 2010 Pat Lynch. All rights reserved.