Peters and Waterman, in their ground-breaking book, In Search of Excellence, said that leaders should not wait too long to take action. Leaders should not allow excessive planning or the need for certainty delay a decision that should be made sooner rather than later. Leaders should, they recommended, instead, follow the adage they coined, "Ready, Fire, Aim."

Despite the many recent factors that have contributed to businesses having to adapt quickly, far too many leaders continue to delay decisions that should be made now.

I've watched numerous leaders delay a decision, only to have the situation deteriorate further instead of improving with time. A few examples:

Dave hoped that, as the COO, he could wait for the bottom line to improve before carving out additional financial resources to upgrade their leadership development programs for first-line supervisors and high-potential talent. He rationalized, "As long as we've got the talent we need now and the pipeline continues as it has in the past, we'll be fine. We can meet our needs for new leadership without having to make any changes."

He failed on two fronts. First, he didn't recognize that in difficult economic times, as lay-offs and buy-outs become more commonplace, the existing talent pool was over-stretched and no longer had the available bandwidth to spend on their own leadership development efforts. They were focused, rightly, on getting the business back on track and moving ahead - many of the leaders-to-be weren't ready for the next position.

Second, the economic challenges altered what needed to be included in the existing leadership development programs. What had been the standard curriculum no longer addressed the critical issues of the business. The aspiring leaders who did attend the programs did not learn what they most needed to know.

As a result, fewer leaders were being developed than they had anticipated and what they learned was not as critical as it should have been.

Stephanie didn't want to get rid of the people whom she suspected might be undermining the effectiveness of her department. She believed, "We've never had to lay people off for business reasons before and those we've had to redeploy, due to performance issues, were always able to find work somewhere else in the business. Besides, some of them have been with the business for a long time."

She got it wrong, too. She failed to take into consideration at least two major effects.

The first is the insidious effect that allowing poor performers to stay on the job has on the morale and performance of others. Most staff members know who the poor performers are and question, if not quietly criticize, the boss who doesn't do anything to address the problem. They inevitably ask, "Why doesn't she do anything? Doesn't she know what's going on or doesn't she have what it takes to address the problem head on?" When Stephanie fails to take action to address the poor performers in the business, it undermines her credibility and the respect the staff has for her.

Furthermore, the staff becomes dissatisfied with the fact that they are working hard, so they say, to overcome the shortcomings of the poor performers. They can become frustrated because their natural desire for fairness is not being met. Morale and performance suffers as a result.

The second effect results from the belief that longevity trumps performance. Many leaders value loyalty and longevity - they often rightfully believe that people who've stuck with the firm and have worked for years to help the business succeed ought to be valued. Yes, but they sometimes let their commitment to loyalty cloud their judgment. They overlook poor performance, rationalizing that they're long-time employees and deserve special consideration as a result.

There's a difference between performance and time on the job. Time on the job does not entitle one to special consideration in and of itself, especially if performance is below par. When leaders excuse the poor performance of long-time employees, they unwittingly send the message that performance doesn't matter as much as longevity. Morale and performance suffers here, too.

Peters and Waterman advise leaders to "ready, fire, aim." They argue that it's better to take action sooner than to wait too long. Procrastination is not a strategy - it's the avoidance of responsibility.

What decisions have you been avoiding that should rightly be made now?

Anne Mulcahy, in a NY Times interview, observed "how little honest feedback people get in companies, and how important it is for people to have a sense of candid assessment."

No one problem is as persistent or as pervasive in organizations as the lack of candid and honest feedback. In far too many organizations, feedback is non-existent, inconsistent, or vague and obscure.

Much of my coaching success is merely the result of providing clear and candid feedback and teaching leaders to do the same.

How might you provide better feedback? Do you need to be more consistent, more clear, more precise, more candid?

The book, Zorba the Greek, was written by Nikos Katzantzakis while he was in Stoupa, the small Greek village where my wife and I have a home.

Zorba was not politically correct, at all. In fact, he is known for his exuberant and outrageous behavior.

There's something to be said for living life, and working, in a way that is not constrained by what others think.

In what way can, or should, you be more like Zorba? Opa!

email: archie@archietinelli.com archie@archietinelli.com