Golf and the Game of Leadership

I've been reading a Leadership book quite recently entitles "Golf and the Game of Leadership". Its by Donald Mc Hugh, and he obviously infuses parallelisms with the game and the practice. As I read through his chapters, I found them easy to digest and internalize. His ideas are not necessarily new - but they are central to the concept of leadership.

One particular> chapter had a little test for its readers where we are asked to force rank five (5) important Leadership-connected personality traits, and as Mr. Mc Hugh warns, it was harder than it looks. You rank the one most important to you with a 5 and proceed to rank the rest, with the least important one garnering a 1.

The traits?

• Trustworthiness
• Giving Credit where Credit is due
• Doing what is Right vs. what is Easy
• Honesty
• People matter

Before going any further, you might want to take a few moments of your time to answer this one yourself, then you can compare your response with mine and see if we think alike - or you are a leader of a different leaning. Of course, anyone could rank things in any way - and there is no real right answer. Though something - personality perhaps?, gets revealed in one's choices.

You done? Okay, here's what I chose and how I went about it.

I rated the 5 characteristics (as presented from top to bottom) in this order - 1,2,4,5,3 (meaning Trustworthiness gets 1, i.e. 'least important'; while Honesty gets the 5 - being the most important of them all). I could say that I was honestly surprised with my answers too - considering that I thought it was really important for me to be seen as trustworthy.

But here's how I approached things. I thought to myself, okay... which is more important - trustworthiness or giving credit where due? I thought that if I do the second, I would earn the first - hence in a 'cause and effect' consideration, I would have to rank option 2 higher than option 1.

Between option 3 and 4? No contest. This is on the given assumption that easy is not the right way - because if there was an easy and right way, then it would be a no-brainer choice. People will choose easy if they wanted shortcuts - hence it could entail cheating a bit, shaving a bit of quality here to reach a deadline, and I would normally follow that lead - after all, I am normally practical - but... it would not be honest. Between doing what is practical vs. what is right, I would have to say that given my exposure to the Quality Initiatives of CMMI, I would have to say 'go for what is right - even if its harder. If I did that, it would show that I am honest. So again, one becomes the prerequisite - or foundation of the other. Hence Honesty over Right vs. Easy.

I now needed to consider 'People matter' as an option. Maybe its my cultural upbringing about 'Family matters' or work harmony - but I felt that working with others was relatively important. How can anyone lead, if he or she was not able to reach others? How can I reach others if I don't show any semblance of interest or respect for others? Now, was this higher than Credit where its due? I'd say that to give credit where its due would entail the trait of being able to respect and mold people - hence the prerequisite of being interested in them - knowing they do matter. That said, I decided that People Matter had greater weight than Credit where due.

Between Credit where due and Right even if not Easy? Right vs. Easy was a more challenging task - and so it had the edge. Thus putting Right vs. Easy second to Honesty, followed by People-oriented (prerequisite of teamwork) at third; and of course Credit where due comes next followed by Trustworthiness.

Again, let me reiterate, Trustworthiness is very important to me - I rarely give my promise because I don't want to end up breaking them. So if this is the bottom of the five, you can imagine how much weight I put in the other four. This was my logical (and ideal) reasoning.

Having said that, I did another ranking - this time representative of what I normally seem to practice... and here is how it came out. 5,3,1,2,4.

Like I said, Trustworthiness is important - so I make sure I come across as such a person. Next is People-matter where I emphasize that the team is important. There is a Vulcan saying: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few" and I may prescribe to this. It also shows when I always remember the "Golden Rule" (the original one anyway). Number 3 is Credit where it is due, and coming at 2 points is Honesty and lastly, we have Right vs. Easy.

So I have two sets of numbers - the ideal and the real (or practical). My goal is to transpose myself from the actual to the ideal.

The question is... can I afford to do this?

I hope so.

Self-Coaching:

Before we even get down to the nitty-gritty of such possibilities, let me present the 10 guiding questions for Self-Coaching...

1. Is this good for Me?
2. What does my body have to say about it?
3. What are my Values?
4. Whay would Jesus (or insert another role-model's name) do?
5. What am I seeing?
6. What really matters here?
7. Where should I act / where shoudl I step back?
8. What would make me genuinely happy?
9. Who has some guidance for me right now?
10. What is the desired intention in my life today?

Now I can't recall where I read this, but it certainly impressed me enough to jot it down on a notepad and stick it into my planner. Unfortunately, I mised out on who and where I got it, and it has been a while, so I can't recall where I stumbled across this. I will endeavor to find the source - but should someone see this and know said source, please give me a post, so I can properly cite its source.

Now as to it being possible... it sure seems so, but... and this is a BIG but, it will entail honesty on the person who is trying to implement a self-coaching technique... after all, just as coaching will entail ferreting out the truth form the coachee - the coach must likewise ensure that he (or she) is being honest in answering the questions.

Aside from that one stumbling block, I find no other reason why it shouldn't work. Have I tried it yet? Honestly?... not yet. I see this as a checklist to go through when a decision has to be made - one pertaining to something possibly life-changing like a new career. So I guess I'm just waiting for the rgiht opportunity to use these ten guiding questions.

When that happens, I hope it does work.

A co-facilitator of mine asked me a question relating to a topic about a particular leadership style called the Leader's Window by John Beck.


To give an idea as to what the Leader's Window is all about, think of a window equally divided into 4 quadrants - two above and two below separated of course by two lines - one vertical and the other, horizontal. Now... think of this as a chart - with the base (the x-axis of said chart) representing a measurement called 'Task' and the y-axis representative of teh chart's left side, reffered to as the 'Relationship' side. For those of you familiar with Ken Blanchard's Situational Leadership, the illustration is very similar - I won't be surprised if Blanchard's illustration (and idea) was a precursor to the idea (and illustration) by Beck.


The idea is that these four quadrants represent the following combination of Task/Relationship:


Lower right quadrant is repersentative of Low relationship but high tasks, ( a.k.a. S1)

Upper right quadrant represents a High task, as well as a High relationship combination (S2)

Upper left quadrant represents High relationship but Lower tasks (S3)

Lower left quadrant represents (S4) where tasks and relationships are lessened and a similar situation happened with tasks.



Anyway... getting to my point, these quadrants represent the four ways leadership can be handled with certain individuals - its a model useable by all - it likewise happens to be (as mentioned earlier) easily interpreted by any previous readers of Blanchard's Situational Leadership.

S1 represents a leadership style that sets direction - leaving nothing to chance, never mind the opinionis of others. It is, after all a low relationship factor, yet high in instructions / directions giving.


On the other hand, S2 is high in both Tasks (instructions) and Relationship (communication).


One activity asks the participants to decide which fits more for a given scenario - you have a Best Friend who's ready and willing ot help in a Kitchen renovation - but mind you, with no known skills. And you have a sibling (brother or sister) who is likewise untrained but not as excited in helping with the Kitchen renovation.

The solution given by Beck's case is that for the sister, you use S1 (high task, low relationship); while the best friend is handled with S2 (high task, high relationship). My co-facilitator's bone of contention is that why is this the case, shouldn't it be the other way around?

For a long time, I thought of this as well and if we simply look at things from a Blanchard perspective, that should be the right solution (sister S2; friend S1) because the sister needed a higher relationship style - to possibly convince her to help... remember her low motivation? Whereas the best friend would be more high task, but no need for a high relationship, since this friend is a genuine volunteer. This is the Situational Leadership approach. So what makes L4 see things differently?

Beck has a formula... P = A+M (potential = ability + motivation), and to make a long story short, out of a possible high of 4 (A=2 and M=2) to a possible 0 (A=0 and M=0), we'd have a P1 alligned with S1, P2 alligned with S2, etc... The Sister had an ability of 1 and motivation of 0, while the Friend had ability and motivation of 1 each - hence his was a higher potetial whihc landed in S2.

The reason for this seemingly incongruent thought is that in as S2, you ask them for their input - and the sister wouldn't care less, while the friend would be excited - so we use the less strict style on the friend and the one with tighter control on the sister.

I may be talking goobeldy-gook to some folks here - not surprising since its a blog that enterd the middle of a story and told in a very short manner. I will endeavor to explain things in more detail in succeeding posts.

Note: I recently changed the title of this blog from 'On Facilitating' to "On Facilitating, Coaching and Leading" - why? Well, upon reviewing what I was placing in this site, I realized that most of what I was alluding to, were not just exclusive facilitating skills, techniques or topics - not really.

I therefore just expounded the blog to cover a wider range of topics, and align the title with its contents. Though most of the article may still be facilitator-based, the expanded focus allows me better leeway in inserting ideas, monologues, articles about the three items.

I relate strongly to these three roles, and it is but natural that I like discussing them. Entries to this blog should therefore start picking up, specially since its coverage has expanded.

One of the greater challenges of a facilitator is the lead in query usually mentioned by us in any training. Its simple, yet can be very risky for some - and yet it also shows that we are ready to take on anything that our participants may dish out. What is this lead in query?

"What Questions do you have?"

This means we are inviting anyone to ask questions about the topic - but things don't really just limit themselves to what was discussed - as is often the case, many of my participants ask queries related to the topic, yet are focused on their hoping to hear some comment, opinion or clarification about their situation, problem or concern. At times the questions seem innocent enough, yet they carry deep undertones.

As a facilitator therefore, I need to consider the question - its possible different dimensions and implications. I, of course answer it as best I can. At times a truthful answer may not be what the question's owner needs - at other times, I have to qualify my response as a 'personal opinion' as opposed to this being company policy - specially when what I am about to say is not official company standard lines or answers. Most of the time, I remain candid - and I guess that this is one trait my participants respect in me.

I am willing to answer the question - but I clarify if what I am saying is what the 'official line' is, and if I have a varying opinion to this , I likewise specify my 'personal' counterpoint. In answering some questions, I have to clarify what 'hat' I am wearing - what viewpoint I am coming from... whether it is as an empathizing colleague, or a more measured response from a manager/leader. People like this approach - they know I'm not keeping things form them, and they respond with positive feedback.

The Q & A portion is a dreaded segment not just in trainings, but in public presentations - and many who dread this probably fear themselves looking incompetent or foolish. This may be true if one cannot give a valid answer and then tries to give it anyway. There is also the fear of ridicule - and though I may have had my share of irate or difficult audience members, I have yet to see someone openly contradict me or shame me while I am talking. Why so? Am I just lucky? No... truth to tell, I inform my participants if their query is answerable by me - or if they should consult others about the answer they are looking for.

I don't pretend to be an expert, I don't' force any issue - I simply inform... either by giving an answer - or two, by giving my personal opinion or measured advice, but I will also be the first to admit if I am not an expert in a particular field - but this does not mean I won't help them explore their dilemma, query or concern. I extend a hand to help - if not answer, to understand.

Maybe this helps them - if not by finding the answer, by at least realizing that I am willing to help. Sometimes, this is enough to turn what may be a possible vociferous complaint for not helping them, into a grudging acceptance of my limitations. There is no such thing as a master of all things - that is just hubris... and hubris is the dichotomy of earnestness.

Answer honestly, answer candidly - if need be, explain your answer - if you can't address the question, offer to help them find the answer or solution - then own up to solving it, to helping them. That should get anyone through those next challenges in handling queries when said difficult or challenging questions do pop up.

A cross-cultural problem seems to have arisen in one of a client's project. Apparently, their Bratislavan counterparts are finding it difficult to communicate with them, and it has gotten to the point that email coming from Bratislava is questioning the competence of the Filipinos. It has become that serious.

I was then called in, sometime September, to learn what the situation was, and make possible recommendations - I became involved because one of the courses I handle happens to be on Effective Cross-Cultural Communication. Apparently I was seen as an expert - of which I can really relate to, give the seeming nature of the problem.

As part of my first telecon with both our client's representative and his Bratislavan counterpart, I looked up additional subjects regarding cross-culture problems, specifying (if possible) the Philippine setting.

I can say that the net - with all its resources, gave a limited view of refferences. Either that or I searched the wrong search engine. In comes Marimel (both friend and colleague) who had a book to recommend to me - 'Working with Filipinos - A Cross-Cultural Encounter' by F. Landa Jocano. A narrow paperback (if you could call a 100 page book narrow, that is), clearly explaining why Filipinos behave the way they do. This was exactly what I needed, and armed with this, I could definitely see what needed to be emphasized on both sides - from both sides.

After our first telecon - where I mentioned that we (meaning, me representing the company i worked with) could help, was where I also recommended the same book to my client, who naturally expressed the need to read up on it first and see if the book's discussions fit their situation, and did not put Filipinos into bad light (though why would a book by a Filipino put Filipinos to bad light is a question I thought about - but hey, my client was just being careful not to add possible ammunition to an already exasperated Bratislavan).

Well after sourcing the book in our local bookstore myself, and our actually having purchased several copies to possibly send to Bratislava (and possibly Germany), we're ready to further discuss how things are going to proceed... thus a second telecon is happening this afternoon to discuss just that.

Now, aside from this book, we do have a cross-cultural training that shows just these problems; I'm just wondering if things could have been avoided had people gone through the training first - and been able to apply the lessons learned. I mean, it is there - if they simply knew about it... and since its an official client-related training, it is determined to be a needed training for them all to attend and learn from - not just locally, but globally.

I recommended the possibility for Bratislava to somehow send us a counterpart of their culture, so I can emphasize this during a stylized conduct of their very own cross-culture issues and answers.

Man... I knew I had been equipped with seeming diplomatic capabilities (a topic for another time) and through this, my ability to address cross-cultural needs.

Oh yeah... if you do find similar difficulties, i do suggest gettign Jocano's book. In In case you're all wondering, the ISBN 971-622-009-x. Get the book, its proving to be very uselful in conducting said cross-cultural needs.

I've been asked to develop a training outline on 'Coaching'. But before I continue, perhaps a little backgrounder is needed.

I work for a training institute which has as its client a very large and established IT services organization. For this training institute, the IT services organization is currently it 'golden egg', mostly because said IT company is its sole client - now before one egts into saying 'what?!... only one client?!', let me assure you that this client; from the viewpoint of the Pareto principle, is the 20% that matters for 80% of profits... in short, it is enough to give the training institute its profitability.

Unfortunately, if I will now insert Porter's 5 forces model, I could easily say that this client has great negotiating clout, and the training isntitute cannot get a better deal, as I'm sure both of them know that the IT company is the sole golden egg. This naturally affects all of the traning company's employees since we cannot seem to get a good deal in increases - even if the IT company seems to be very profitable. Ah... so much for 'a fair deal' (unless the training institute has certain undeclared profits that its employees are not feeling - which might also explain why the IT company is reluctant to allow increase of fees).

All that is speculation, though, and not really helpful to the backgrounder - so, to continue...

It so happened, my week - through a fluke of training schedules not pushing through, was really filled with free time, thus my boss took the opportunity to tap my development and coaching know-how to develop this training. Why? Because she has had several queries regarding the possibility of conducting trainings on 'Coaching' outside of our main client.

What's the significance here? Well for starters, it looks like this traiing institute is strating to spread its wings. After all, so long as it remains fully dependent on one client, things will not improve for the company and its employees - me included.

But the upside for me here is that in the process of developing this new course, I learn a little more (or should I say a lot more) on coaching - outside of what I normally teach for this IT company. So I admitedly considered myself a good enough coach, in a way... I was a natural - though the book I read now gives me access to tools, a more formal process to follow and a few assessment tests i can take to see where I need to improve on... and this is the reason why i did want to take the assignment.

It was an oportunity for me to learn new things and access new knowledge. It certainly will broaden my skill-base for being a coach. Once I develop the training itself, I can even say that should I eventually leave this company, I would have left a legacy. Though technically, I already have a legacy here by virtus of a 'client service' training that I did almost three years ago. Still, two - maybe even a third training (if the Filipino cross-cultural training pushes through) will be better than just one.

This definitely beats doing repetitious trainings that I can do, even with my eyes closed.

I've recently been searching for alternative options for my future work. "How?" - you ask? Well, for starters, I've purchased the latest version of "What Color is Your Parachute" byRichard Nelson Bolles, to see how his techniques can help me realize what potetials I've been missing out on. From there, it would just be a simple case of comparing what I have with waht I can do or want.

The thing is, I'm stuck in between some pages, specifically the parts where I'm being asked to take stock of my insterests... or skills. Its not that I'm confused or anything, but more likely reluctant to choose a narrow set of skills to best describe me. The inventory of skills I saw had me able to cover almost 2/3 of all the items in the list. Hard pressed to choose just five, and I no wrealize that this can be a daunting task of trimming things down.

The other reason for my reluctance? I would obviously end up with the same skill-set that I'm currenty using... just for the simple reason that these skills are what I've been honing ever since I've been training. Its not necessarily a good or bad thing, btu I just fear that I'll end up considering the same thing I'm in now... that is, training - then what would that mean?

What if, one's best destiny is rather limiting in the economic scale? I've already pointed out that training (at least, here in the Philipine corporate sector) seems limited in terms of growth, due to a preception that it is not as critical as marketing or sales or finance. Which therefore gives the reason for not having competitive pay rates - as compared to the other work departments I've just mentioned.

Might I be missing a glaring point? After all, the skills I cite as seemingly connected with being a facilitator are strong communication, facilitation of either a training or meeting (either way, its knowledge exchange - thus communication), and when I say communicating - I mean both written and verbal. Then there's the ability to empathize, maybe follow through in an analytical sense... to understand whre the other person is coming from.

So what is this glaring point? Well, isn't communication and understanding very important, regardless of which industry one is in? Might this really be the reaosn I find it hard to consider another career path - because too many are possibly open to me? Might I therefore be like a cat, trying to catch too many birds - only to end up with none?

Man... am I confused. Things are a whole lot simpler whrn you know what you need to focus on. But when so many options rise up, oen wonders which is the better option. So why can't I choose? Is it a fear of choosing wrong? But if I'm left with inaction, won't that be equally wrong? You bet it will. So choose I must... and choose wisely.

Soon...

Economics and Facilitating, how one affects the other...

Don't worry, I wont be talking 'technical' here, I just want to vent out a few frustrations of how real life may be denying us some real good facilitators.

It starts this way... 'How many teachers do you know, happen to be rich and successful in life?'

Now before getting into a debate on 'it really depends on your definition of rich and successful...' let me clarify what I mean. 'How many teachers have you seen being really happy and comfortable with the lifestyle they are able to give their family?' (assuming of course that they do have a family to support). Not much, I'll bet. Why is this so?

Many people - those in the academe included, simply reason out that teaching is a calling - similar to being a priest... or pastor. I would agree with this statement on the grounds that it takes someone who can communicate with others, and be interested in helping others - maybe even show a key characteristic that is empathy. But teachers - and it seems, by analogy, facilitators have one setback that priests and pastors can use.

Teachers/Facilitators need to make a living. Of course they're salaried - or hired in a contractual engagement. Religious orders take care of their priests - and if there is a lack of such care, the followers help through their donations or tithes... tax free, I might add.

So... calling? I'd say that this is just an excuse to not add more to the spending capacity of said teaching or facilitating class.

Schools - st least, those that seriously adhere to keeping their teaching quality standards high, will raise the pay of their teachers... to the detriment of parents - who then grit their teeth because they know it will have better pay-offs for their children's future. But how many schools can actually have the right to practice this?

What about those schools that can't do so for a simple lack of quality to begin with?

The sad fact is, and this is more so in stagnantly 'developing' countries - yes, like the Philippines, many of our best teachers leave the profession because 'the calling' - as ideallic as it is, as important a mission as it can be... simply cannot make many of their lives a whole lot easier, better and more comfortable. many of these professionals do have the capacity for self-sacrifice. The problem is, such self-sacrifice must be reciprocated in some way to help them help their family. If a teacher cannot make ends meet... if he/she is worried about family needs, then focus on teaching on an everyday basis is lost, and this teacher decides to quit - because no one can eat 'the calling'.

Many even look at teaching as a place for 'those who can't perform in the business world - teach' sort of thing. Others treat facilitators similarly - that since teaching/facilitating/training is a cost-centric program, and not a profit-centric one, they should be relegated as second-class, second-tiered, second-importance (you choose the description) personnel in the organization... yes, even the more seemingly progressive multi-nationals still think this way.

It all boils down to the bottom-line, economics and one's contribution to the profit-margins. But if this keeps up... the profession will always lose its stars to better paying alternatives - not because they (the stars) want to leave - but because they need to. Love for the profession always has to come after love for family - specially one's children.

Sad... because of this, I know of at least two teachers deciding to migrate to other countries, and with them - their knowledge, skills and capabilities in helping our future generations get better. Others, have likewise decided to leave the profession for somethings better - financially that is... not exactly nobler.

In a society supposedly seeking to better itself, the very foundations for helping achieve this are getting lost in the build-up process. Many teachers are now either abroad and teaching children of other nations... or are no longer teachers... choosing to be domestic helpers or nurses/care-givers. As for facilitators? They may be an endangered species as well.

Not a healthy prospect, when planning long term.

Something needs to change. Should it be my career?

Here's an article about 'article writing'. Yes, there actually is one - and a cheer to those who decided on doing it... specially Burt Dubin, its author/writer. I'm posting it here for others to look at - and as a reminder to me at times.

You can also follow the link to see it in its original form (or at least in the form I saw it originally) at the success.org website, from which I occassion to read up on wisdom-adding articles. http://successnet.org/cms/How-to-Write-Articles.html

It is my hope that if anyone stumbles inot this page, they may read this article and be impressed enough - and interested in plunging into the world of article-writing. I know it took me a while to have enough guts to start sharing my ideas... and an article like this might have mace me start earlier than I did.

Barring that, I hope that someone else will serendipitously find this article useful - even if they do occasionally write... and to me, thats enough reason to share it with others.

---article starts ---

How to Write Articles:
by Burt Dubin

How to write articles editors love and readers treasure—articles that build your name, increase your fame, enhance your reputation, magnify your credibility and boost your bookings. Whether we like it or not, as speakers we also are writers. Here's the secret strategy you can use to create winning articles every time.

Editor's Note: This article is directed toward professional speakers and writers. However, we felt that it offered real wisdom into how to write for your audience—whether that be in an auditorium, a prospect or your boss.

Start by having something to write about. Something that is targeted at a particular audience. Something this audience longs to know about. Something that adds value to their lives, their career. Something that empowers the members of your target audience. Something your target audience yearns for. Something that guides them to get somewhere they want to get.

Continue by being in love with words. By delighting in using your thesaurus and your dictionary to find the right word to convey your meaning. It doesn't hurt to have a copy of Strunk and White's "The Elements of Style" handy. And Theodore M. Bernstein's "The Careful Writer." Throw in William Zinsser's "On Writing Well."

Next, have a passion for your topic or issue—whatever you're to write about. And more than your passion, know what you're writing about. Know it inside out, upside down, backward and forward. Then with that as your starting point, do your homework. Research your subject.

Research your subject exhaustively. Invest in every book, every recorded program by every expert you can find. Read the journals, magazines and newsletters that treat any aspect of your subject. Make yourself a hungry, restless, greedy seeker after data, knowledge, wisdom and truth regarding your subject.

Now get to know the experts in the field. Call them. Write them. Meet with them at conferences and conventions, trade shows, every convocation they gather at. Create peerships.
I almost forgot—live your subject. Get out of your aerie into the street. Get your hands dirty, your face besmirched. Make a few hundred blunders and suffer as many pratfalls in the process. Get embarrassed and hurt, red-faced, eyes stinging with your held-back tears—all on your way to mastership.

After a few years of all of the above, you're ready to write.

Almost.

Now ask yourself. What value do you have to offer in this piece you're about to write, fingers trembling over the keys? What benefits are you ready to confer on your reader? What joys and pleasures are to ensue for your reader as a result of reading and then acting on the hard-won wisdom you're about to share?

Now—you're ready to write.

Tell the truth. Tell your perceived truth. You're unique, one-of-a-kind. You see the world outside you through your eyes. You see life and conditions outside you through the prism of your perceptions—and through the prism of your misperceptions. Don't deny it. We all have misperceptions. John F. Kennedy misperceived matters and created the Bay of Pigs fiasco, circa 1961. A few years later Richard M. Nixon misperceived matters and brought his presidency down, disgracing himself in the process.

As for William Jefferson Clinton, his stained honor and his misperceptions, the less said the better! These cases were sad. If presidents can misperceive, so can you! Your truth is yours. Be proud of it. Share it simply. Plainly. Directly. Share it with your head high.

Write like you talk! People prefer vernacular. Give it to 'em. Forget English 101. You're writing to communicate your ideas and feelings on stuff that matters with readers who care.

Cut down commas. Every comma slows your reader down. You don't want that. The rule here is simple. If in doubt, leave it out. Review what you write a few hours later. Better yet review the next morning. Mercilessly rip out every comma that isn't crucial to your meaning.

Your readers gotta be sold on the value of reading the fruit of your mind. In your opening paragraphs paint vivid pictures of the rapture and sweetness, the thrills and exultation, the excitement and delight that await the reader who absorbs and then acts on your message. And in addition, it's your responsibility to paint black images of the tortures and torment, the punishment and agony, the misery and wretchedness and the distress and adversity, that await those who choose to ignore your words.

Start with a survey, a summary of what is here for your reader. Phrase your summary as benefits to be made available in this piece of prose. Folks, professionals in particular, are interested in benefits to be harvested when they read your words.

Continue with your presentation of facts, data, information and wisdom, seasoned by a story, maybe several illustrations and metaphors. Short sentences. Simple sentences. Avoid compound sentences. One and two syllable words for the most part. The front page of the Wall Street Journal and all of USA Today are edited for the 8th grade level.

Successful writer and self-publisher, Gordon Burgett, says, "Remember that almost all successful articles contain facts, quotes and anecdotes. Beginners underquote. Editors seldom buy without them. Often, repeating a phrase that was in the lead gives the sense of having completed a valuable excursion."

Conclude with an Action Plan, a series of steps to take now in order to enjoy the benefits you outlined. And that's how to write articles editors love and readers treasure, articles that build your name and increase your fame, enhance your reputation, magnify your credibility and increase your bookings.

I took this Myers-Briggs test at http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFJ.html and came out as an ENFJ type of person (see score below). Of course things may change given time, so this isn't exacly written in stone.

Extroverted : 1
Intuitive : 38
Feeling : 38
Judging : 33
Strength of the preferences %

You are:

• slightly expressed extrovert
• moderately expressed intuitive personality
• moderately expressed feeling personality
• moderately expressed judging personality
  

--- articles begin ---

The Portrait of the Teacher Idealist (eNFj):

The Idealists called Teachers are abstract in their thought and speech, cooperative in their style of achieving goals, and directive and extraverted in their interpersonal relations. Learning in the young has to be beckoned forth, teased out from its hiding place, or, as suggested by the word "education," it has to be "educed." by an individual with educative capabilities. Such a one is the eNFj, thus rightly called the educative mentor or Teacher for short. The Teacher is especially capable of educing or calling forth those inner potentials each learner possesses. Even as children the Teachers may attract a gathering of other children ready to follow their lead in play or work. And they lead without seeming to do so.

Teachers expect the very best of those around them, and this expectation, usually expressed as enthusiastic encouragement, motivates action in others and the desire to live up to their expectations. Teachers have the charming characteristic of taking for granted that their expectations will be met, their implicit commands obeyed, never doubting that people will want to do what they suggest. And, more often than not, people do, because this type has extraordinary charisma.

The Teachers are found in no more than 2 or 3 percent of the population. They like to have things settled and arranged. They prefer to plan both work and social engagements ahead of time and tend to be absolutely reliable in honoring these commitments. At the same time, Teachers are very much at home in complex situations which require the juggling of much data with little pre-planning. An experienced Teacher group leader can dream up, effortlessly, and almost endlessly, activities for groups to engage in, and stimulating roles for members of the group to play.

In some Teachers, inspired by the responsiveness of their students or followers, this can amount to genius which other types find hard to emulate. Such ability to preside without planning reminds us somewhat of an Provider, but the latter acts more as a master of ceremonies than as a leader of groups.

Providers are natural hosts and hostesses, making sure that each guest is well looked after at social gatherings, or that the right things are expressed on traditional occasions, such as weddings, funerals, graduations, and the like. In much the same way, Teachers value harmonious human relations about all else, can handle people with charm and concern, and are usually popular wherever they are. But Teachers are not so much social as educational leaders, interested primarily in the personal growth and development of others, and less in attending to their social needs.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Oprah are examples of Teacher Idealists.


Here's more on being an Idealist:
http://keirsey.com/personality/nf.html

IDEALIST NFs, being ABSTRACT in communicating and COOPERATIVE in implementing goals, can become highly skilled in DIPLOMATIC INTEGRATION. Thus their most practiced and developed intelligent operations are usually teaching and counseling (NFJ mentoring), or conferring and tutoring (NFP advocating). And they would if they could be sages in one of these forms of social development.

The Idealist temperament have an instinct for interpersonal integration, learn ethics with ever increasing zeal, sometimes become diplomatic leaders, and often speak interpretively and metaphorically of the abstract world of their imagination. They are proud of themselves in the degree they are empathic in action, respect themselves in the degree they are benevolent, and feel confident of themselves in the degree they are authentic.

Idealist types search for their unique identity, hunger for deep and meaningful relationships, wish for a little romance each day, trust their intuitive feelings implicitly, aspire for profundity. This is the "Identity Seeking Personality" -- credulous about the future, mystical about the past, and their preferred time and place are the future and the pathway. Educationally they go for the humanities, avocationally for ethics, and vocationally for personnel work.

Social relationships:

In their family interactions they strive for mutuality, provide spiritual intimacy for the mates, opportunity for fantasy for their children, and for themselves continuous self-renewal. Idealists do not abound, being as few as 8% and nor more than 10% of the population.

Mohandas Gandhi and Eleanor Roosevelt are examples of Idealists

The NFs:

On the introspective side, Myers had NFs as friendly to the core in dreaming up how to give meaning and wholeness to people's lives. Conflict in those around them is painful for NFs, something they must deal with in a very personal way, and so they care deeply about keeping morale high in their membership groups, and about nurturing the positive self-image of their loved ones.

Indeed, while they might differ from each other on how important judging schedules (J) or probing for options (P) is in acting on their friendly feelings, and while their social address can be expressive (E) or reserved (I), all NFs consider it vitally important to have everyone in their circle -- their family, friends, and colleagues -- feeling good about themselves and getting along with each other.

Thus Myers, an INFP herself, saw her fellow NFs as "humane" and "sympathetic" -- as "enthusiastic" and "religious" -- as "creative" and "intuitive" -- and as "insightful" and "subjective." Again this is a distinct picture of attitude and action, showing NFs to be very much like each other and greatly different from SPs, SJs, and NTs.

--- articles end ---

How do I feel about this? In one sense it seems to verify that I'm doing what my personality says is fit for me... that being the role of a teacher/facilitator. For the most part, as I read the article (and at times re-read it) I find myself agreeing. I mean, who doesn't want to be compared to Gorbachev - the leader of the former USSR, who had the will and courage to make his country change?

Will I have such a resolve when such a time comes? I wonder... and hope that I prove up for the challenge.

The 90/10 Principle
Author : Stephen Covey

Have you read this before? Discover the 90/10 Principle. It will change your life (at least the way you react to situations). What is this principle?

10% of life is made up of what happens to you. 90% of life is decided by how you react.

What does this mean? We really have no control over 10% of what happens to us. We cannot stop the car from breaking down. The plane will be late arriving, which throws our whole schedule off. A driver may cut us off in traffic. We have no control over this 10%. The other 90% is different. You determine the other 90%. How? By your reaction. You cannot control a red light, but you can control your reaction. Don't let people fool you; YOU can control how you react.

Let's use an example:

You are eating breakfast with your family. Your daughter knocks over a cup of coffee onto your business shirt. You have no control over what just what happened. What happens when the next will be determined by how you react.

You curse. You harshly scold your daughter for knocking the cup over. She breaks down in tears. After scolding her, you turn to your spouse and criticize her for placing the cup too close to the edge of the table. A short verbal battle follows. You storm upstairs and change your shirt. Back downstairs, you find your daughter has been too busy crying to finish breakfast and get ready for school. She misses the bus. Your spouse must leave immediately for work. You rush to the car and drive your daughter to school. Because you are late, you drive 40 miles an hour in a 30 mph speed limit. After a 15-minute delay and throwing $60 traffic fine away, you arrive at school. Your daughter runs into the building without saying goodbye. After arriving at the office 20 minutes late, you find you forgot your briefcase. Your day has started terrible. As it continues, it seems to get worse and worse. You look forward to coming home, When you arrive home, you find small wedge in your relationship with your spouse and daughter.

Why? Because of how you reacted in the morning. Why did you have a bad day?
A) Did the coffee cause it?
B) Did your daughter cause it?
C) Did the policeman cause it?
D) Did you cause it?

The answer is D.

You had no control over what happened with the coffee. How you reacted in those 5 seconds is what caused your bad day.

Here is what could have and should have happened. Coffee splashes over you. Your daughter is about to cry. You gently say, "It's ok honey, you just need, to be more careful next time". Grabbing a towel you rush upstairs. After grabbing a new shirt and your briefcase, you come back down in time to look through the window and see your child getting on the bus. She turns and waves. You arrive 5 minutes early and cheerfully greet the staff. Your boss comments on how good the day you are having.

Notice the difference? Two different scenarios. Both started the same. Both ended different. Why? Because of how you REACTED. You really do not have any control over 10% of what happens. The other 90% was determined by your reaction.

Here are some ways to apply the 90/10 principle. If someone says something negative about you, don't be a sponge. Let the attack roll off like water on glass. You don't have to let the negative comment affect you! React properly and it will not ruin your day.

A wrong reaction could result in losing a friend, being fired, getting stressed out etc. How do you react if someone cuts you off in traffic? Do you lose your temper? Pound on the steering wheel? A friend of mine had the steering wheel fall off) Do you curse? Does your blood pressure skyrocket? Do you try and bump them? WHO CARES if you arrive ten seconds later at work? Why let the cars ruin your drive? Remember the 90/10 principle, and do not worry about it. You are told you lost your job. Why lose sleep and get irritated? It will work out. Use your worrying energy and time into finding another job.

The plane is late; it is going to mangle your schedule for the day. Why take out your frustration on the flight attendant? She has no control over what is going on. Use your time to study, get to know the other passenger. Why get stressed out? It will just make things worse. Now you know the 90-10 principle. Apply it and you will be amazed at the
results. You will lose nothing if you try it.

The 90-10 principle is incredible. Very few know and apply this principle. The result?

Millions of people are suffering from undeserved stress, trials, problems and heartache. There never seem to be a success in life. Bad days follow bad days. Terrible things seem to be constantly happening. There is constant stress, lack of joy, and broken relationships. Worry consumes time. Anger breaks friendships and life seems dreary and is not enjoyed to the fullest. Friends are lost. Life is a bore and often seems cruel. Does this describe you? If so, do not be discouraged. You can be different!

Understand and apply the 90/10 principle. It will change your life.
--
Laugh Like U Have Never Ever Cried
Love Like U Have Never Been Hurt
Live Like There Is No Tomorrow.
Enjoy !

This blogs' raison de etre':

In an effort to make this blog have a better 'reason for being', I shall include topics and articles that I will have picked up while being a facilitator. Said articles are to hopefully be useful to both myself and other facilitators whom I may invite to see this work in progress

Facilitating Q&A

What are my responsibilities as a Facilitator?
I consider this, whenever I do this particular role. Its answer can be deceptively simple - I'm there to help. "Help in what?" would be the next obvious question... and I would probably reply, help in making the person or persons that I am facilitating, better understand and appreciate the reasons we are meeting / training and help them achieve goals that they may be able to achieve by themselves (I'll take nothing away from them on this possibility) but will definitely get a whole lot more perspective with me doing the guiding part.

Boy, that was a mouthful (or should I say keyboardful?).

Why'd I get into this?
I guess it was a seeming knack for communicating to others - seeing their POV and addressing my case / position / trainings to address their POV.

How'd I get to be such a sensitive guy...?
Maybe it stems from the fact that I was rather frustrated with some of my teachers "I'm here to fail you, not help you attitude" in college. Sort of reminds me of a friend who majored in Math since he was frustrated with the way his instructors taught him - or did not teach him.

Is this something anyone can just do?
Sure, why not? All one needs is the proper skills (that can be learned) on facilitating, the necessary understanding of what the topic might be is a given - though some people may swing this one, even if they have little or no knowledge of what the topic may be. I say 'may', but will not reccomend it.

Another, more important aspect of facilitating is the need to have the right attitude - just like customer service, this means wanting to help... really wanting. One cannot fake emotions and get away with it all the time.

Is it worth it?
This is the kicker - and we can get all emotional or philosophical here. Suffice it to say that if one did not like what he / she was doing - they'd not last long in this field. After all, though I will not agree to the statement that its not just material gains (in some way, this is a deciding factor too), the self-fulfillment can be high in this regard... if that is your cup of tea.

So far, thats all I can think of.

Is there a difference between a teacher and a facilitator?

Are you kidding me? Aside from spelling, that is, a facilitator usually uses what may be perceived as adult learning... Now this need not be perceived as a-dull-t learning, and most adults can voice their opinions quite well - thus facilitating is often more interactive with the audience.

On the other hand, being a teacher has with it a perceived authority to shape minds - to add to the font of knowledge that a student may find necessary in latter life (though I confess to wondering why I had to know such things as the periodic table, algebraic - or trigonometric equations for that matter). A teacher needs to teach what he/she knows of a particular subject, though mostly by following a pre-arranged curriculum or guide. Said teacher need also adjust his/her style with the learning capacity of his/her students you would expect a different approach to be had for pre-K, Primary, Intermediate, High School and College students.

A facilitator normally has, as an audience, people who are relatively older than your average students, thus he/she may apply a be more free wheeling discussion (on the assumption that . He or she can take the talk into any manner of passageway so long as it eventually reaches (or is brought back to) the topic on hand. See, a facilitator needs to get the audience to speak up - to get their ideas across. Its not to let them learn a new thing, its to let them get organized in any discussions they feel they have to do - with the explicit understanding of gathering ideas or answers to a specific issue/problem/situation.

Now - before I give off a different impression that I'm looking down to the teaching profession, I'm certainly not. My seeming outburst at the start was more of surprise - rather than sarcasm. I respect the teachers and the role they play in shaping the minds of any society's future. I wouldn't mind teaching myself - in fact, I can say that I do teach - just in a different arena. I, rather, see them as colleagues - they shape their students' minds and then I handle their finished products (graduates) to further sharpen their knowledge and skills (or even attitudes).

So yes, there is a difference - but we're definitely on the same side - sort of like a police officer and a fireman, same team - but with specific functions.

What is a facilitator?

What exactly is a facilitator, one might ask. What does he/she do? I can only answer the question with what I do. I act as a guide, resource person, emcee (that is, master of ceremonies - but in a more informal manner), discussion leader and even a sounding board for any participant in a training or meeting.

If a training - yes, I can be considered the trainer... if meeting, I can be called the discussion leader, parliamentarian or even the person who gets to make sure the meeting progresses - as it should, and not get stalled for lack of process, understanding or cooperation.

Sounds important? Definitely! Necessary? You bet! Most meetings and trainings have their effectiveness dependent on such a competent person.

That being said, how have I been able to facilitate my trainings? (Yes, I am more a training facilitator than a meeting facilitator - though I readily must say I can handle meetings equally well, if given the chance) I would have to say that I do quite well.

Now before I am accused of egotistical characteristics, let me point out three reasons why i say this.

1) I have been an experienced training facilitator for more than a decade and a half
2) I have, on occasion, been part of training the trainers programs - and have proven both to my facilitators, and my fellow participants that I am a world class facilitator
3) My trainings have, when applicable (or necessary) had evaluations or feedback from our participants, and I have constantly rated high on my participants marks.

This Blog will be a venue for my feedback - my comments about what I am facilitating. As I enter my views, I will try to preserve any client confidentiality by sticking to acronyms when such can keep certain items or people a secret - as my main client is a very well known firm... one that is jealous of its security and confidentiality.