Learn from Others - Bill Gates Gave Me His Secret Recipe For Success In Business And In Life

Bill Gates said that there only 3 steps for making it in business

1. Find a major industry

2. Figure out what changes are about to take place in an industry

3. Take immediate and massive action

These 3 steps are easier said than done. Without a staff filled with Harvard grads or people working around the clock you probably think that Mr. Gates has given you a task that is much too difficult. Here is where it gets real interesting.

The people who have followed these rules successfully in the past have been very normal everyday people. In fact some of these business leaders only got 2 out of 3 parts of the formula and they still made it. Henry Ford tinkered with automobiles for years before he actually opened for business.

With your permission I would like to tell you why it is easier than ever to actually follow all of the steps laid out by old Billy Billionaire. When you see how his tools have actually created a path that now makes it easy for regular folks like you and I to follow his advice. When you see the blueprint you will be shocked. The answer has been in front of us for several years now. No venture capital is needed!!! No SBA Loans or any kinds of Loans!!! You can actually begin like Marc Cuban (keep your day job and benefits until you are filthy rich!!! Get the point?

Ok here is the blueprint that Bill Gates himself gave to you and I. The internet allows anyone to make money on line The internet is attracting more working class people who want to be entrepreneurs than any other industry anywhere Immediate payment over the internet makes this the smartest choice for cash strapped beginners Companies like mine are taking beginners by the hand and showing them the way.

There is only one thing that is not already in place for your would be future captains of industry.
Immediate Massive action has to come from you. This is your part. The sad thing is that most average people are to afraid, or comfortable to make the move toward a positive life changing action. What will your story be?

It seems that we have already tried everything else. Bill is probably right. In fact, I am certain that he is correct. I recently started doing what he recommends on a very small scale, and I must say that the ease of it all has been quite shocking.

By Marc Golden
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Marc_Golden

Super Leadership - Review that needed in the Organization

In 1989, Charles Manz and Henry Sims Jr. introduced the concept of the "SuperLeader." A SuperLeader, they wrote, is "one who leads others to lead themselves."

Twelve years later, Manz, a professor of business leadership at the University of Massachusetts, and Sims, a professor of management and organization at the University of Maryland, have resurrected the concept in their book, The New SuperLeadership.

What's changed? The authors say the information age has created a complex workplace that changes rapidly and emphasizes autonomous work roles. "The best of all leaders," they write, "is the one who helps people so that eventually they don't need him or her."

Among the strategies SuperLeaders adopt are the following:

* Listen more and talk less.

* Ask more questions and give fewer answers.

* Foster learning from mistakes, not fear of consequences.

* Share information, rather than hoarding it.

* Encourage teamwork and collaboration, not competition.

Manz and Sims provide strategies for developing self-leadership traits, as well as instilling them in others. In addition, The New SuperLeadership offers profiles of SuperLeader executives, including Dennis Bakke of AES Corp. and Southwest Airlines' founder Herb Kelleher.

In the chapter "Leading Organizational Cultures to Self-Leadership," Manz and Sims note that human resource systems play an important role in developing SuperLeaders. Decisions about workflow, staffing, performance appraisal and compensation dictate how successful an organization will be in fostering self-leadership. The authors note, for example, that a pay system can emphasize "the accomplishment of narrow performance objectives" or "initiative and risk-taking."

Training is also an important factor. In the 21st century, Manz and Sims predict, "The top-down, hard-nosed autocrat will become an artifact of history, replaced by leaders who are obsessed with the development of their followers."

(Source: HR Magazine. Oct 2001. FindArticles.com. 26 Oct. 2007. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_10_46/ai_79305567)

What is “Transactional Leadership”?

If you study the subject of leadership or read a college textbook on the topic, you will soon come across the phrase “transactional leadership” theory.

What is this type of leadership behavior and how does it apply to you? In the 1970’s, researcher James McGregor Burns wrote a significant book entitled, Leadership.

He sought to define the processes or behaviors used by leaders to motivate or influence followers.

Burns described leadership behavior as falling within two broad categories of influence. One category is called transformational leadership. This behavior is founded on the belief that leaders and followers can raise each other to higher levels of motivation and morality.

In contrast, transactional leadership seeks to motivate followers by appealing to their own self-interest. Its principles are to motivate by the exchange process. For example, business owners exchange status and wages for the work effort of the employee.

In the political environment, politicians may exchange favors or government jobs for votes. Transactional behavior focuses on the accomplishment of tasks and good worker relationships in exchange for desirable rewards.

Transactional leadership may encourage the leader to adapt their style and behavior to meet the perceived expectations of the followers. Some researchers added to Burns original theory and it is thought by many today that transactional leadership can encompass four types of behavior.

1. Contingent Reward – To influence behavior, the leader clarifies the work needed to be accomplished. The leader uses rewards or incentives to achieve results when expectations are met.

2. Passive Management by Exception - To influence behavior, the leader uses correction or punishment as a response to unacceptable performance or deviation from the accepted standards.

3. Active Management by Exception - To influence behavior, the leader actively monitors the work performed and uses corrective methods to ensure the work is completed to meet accepted standards.

4. Laissez-Faire Leadership – The leader is indifferent and has a “hands-off” approach toward the workers and their performance. This leader ignores the needs of others, does not respond to problems or does not monitor performance.

Transactional leadership behavior is used to one degree or another by most leaders. However, as the old saying goes, “if the only tool in your workbox is a hammer…you will perceive every problem as a nail”.

A leader should not exclusively or primarily practice transactional leadership behavior to influence others!

Here are a few common problems of those who do so. Some use transactional leadership behavior as a tool to manipulate others for selfish personal gain.

It can place too much emphasis on the “bottom line” and by its very nature is short-term oriented with the goal of simply maximizing efficiency and profits.

The leader can pressure others to engage in unethical or amoral practices by offering strong rewards or punishments.

Transactional leadership seeks to influence others by exchanging work for wages, but it does not build on the worker’s need for meaningful work or tap into their creativity.

If utilized as the primary behavior by a leader it can lead to an environment permeated by position, power, perks and politics. The most effective and beneficial leadership behavior to achieve long-term success and improved performance is transformational leadership.

Food of thought: Peter Drucker, who once said, "So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people to work."

Classic cases of group think -Bay of Pigs invasion (1959-1962)

Another closely-studied case of groupthink is the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion. The main idea of the Bay of Pigs invasion was to train a group of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and spark a revolution against Fidel Castro's communist regime.

The plan was fatally flawed from the beginning, but none of Presendent Kennedy's top advisers spoke out against the plan. Kennedy’s advisers also had the main characteristics of groupthink; they had all been educated in the country's top universities, causing them to become a very cohesive group. They were also all afraid of speaking out against the plan, because they did not want to upset the president. The President's brother, Robert Kennedy, took on the role of a "mind guard", telling dissenters that it was a waste of their time, because the President had already made up his mind.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)

How to Avoid Group think?

There are several things businesspeople can do to avoid groupthink: follow good meeting procedures, including the development of an agenda; aim for proper and balanced staff work; present competing views; and attend to correlative meeting problems, like exhaustion. A template for discussion might also be useful. One suggestion is to use an "options memo technique" in which information is presented as a problem statement, a list of options, and a preliminary recommendation. The group then looks at the preliminary recommendation with at least four questions in mind: 1) is the logic correct? (in selecting the preliminary recommendation from among the options); 2) is the judgment correct? (the logic may be fine, but the judgment may be poor); 3) are there any problems or errors remaining in the preliminary recommendation?; and 4) can the preliminary recommendation be improved? In order to prevent group isolation, it may be helpful to bring in new participants on a regular basis, use outside experts, and invite the group to meet off-site so that changes in settings and surroundings are a stimulant.

To avoid groupthink, it is vital for the group leader to become a statesperson or conductor instead of a partisan virtuoso. Leadership almost always involves getting work done through others. High-quality decisions are not made through intimidation, whether intentional or unintentional. Some bosses have no idea why people do not speak up, while the reason they do not is because they are likely to be attacked. Bosses encourage the best performance from groups when they can alert them to the kind of review that is expected. If the leader can be clear, and temperate, there is a great likelihood that norms of disagreement will develop.

Finally, there is the cohesion process itself. Decision making tears at the fabric of group cohesion, and it is the desire to preserve cohesion that is an underlying dynamic of groupthink. But if decisions lower group cohesion it is not necessary to avoid decisions; an alternative is to rebuild cohesion each time. One way to accomplish this rebuilding is to complete decision making by about 65 percent of the way through the meeting, then move on to brainstorming for the last 20-30 percent of the meeting. People who have differed before have a chance to continue to interact, now around less threatening, future-oriented items. This meeting technique allows for decompression, and for rebonding of the group.

Because of the flaws of individual decision making—selective perception, excessive self-interest, limited knowledge, limited time—most important decisions today are made in groups. And groups can do a spectacular job; but they often do not. Meetings, the place where groups do their decision-making work, have a bad reputation these days, largely because of processes such as groupthink. Groupthink is the result of flawed procedures, poor leadership, insulation, and an unmanaged desire for the maintenance of group cohesion and its good feelings. These factors can be addressed positively, and group decision making improved, while groupthink is kept to a minimum.

(Source: http://www.answers.com/library/Small+Business+Encyclopedia-cid-1861778999)

How Groupthink Works?

Janis identified seven points on how groupthink works.

First, the group's discussions are limited to a few alternative courses of action (often only two), without a survey of the full range of alternatives.

Second, the group does not survey the objectives to be fulfilled and the values implicated by the choice.

Third, the group fails to reexamine the course of action initially preferred by the majority of members from the standpoint of the nonobvious risks and drawbacks that had not been considered when it was originally evaluated.

Fourth, the members neglect courses of action initially evaluated as unsatisfactory—they spend little or no time discussing whether they have overlooked nonobvious gain.

Fifth, the members make little or no attempt to obtain information from experts who can supply sound estimates of gains and losses to be expected from alternative courses of action.

Sixth, selective bias is shown in the way the group reacts to factual information and relevant judgments from experts.

Seventh, the members spend little time deliberating about how the chosen policy might be hindered by bureaucratic inertia or sabotaged by political opponents; consequently, they fail to work out contingency plans.


Three general problems seem to be at work:

overestimation of group power and morality, closed mindedness, and pressures toward uniformity. Group-think occurs when a group feels too good about itself. The group feels both invulnerable and optimistic. The group feels morally right. Linked to this attitude of perfection is a correlative close mindedness. Warnings are ignored. Messengers of difference are dismissed. Negative, stereotypical views of opponents are created and used. Finally, there is pressure for uniformity. A certain amount of self-censorship occurs. If individuals have questions, they keep them to themselves. This lack of dissent results in what Janis calls an "illusion of unanimity." If any difference does occur, group pressure is applied to bring the dissident into line. Janis also mentions "the emergence of self-appointed mindguards—members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency."

If these precipitating problems support tendencies to groupthink, there are predisposing conditions as well.

Janis suggests four conditions that predispose a group to groupthink:

cohesiveness, group isolation/ insulation, leader intimidation, and an absence of decision-making procedures. As a group "hangs together" and members grow to like each other, there will be greater pressure not to introduce disturbing information and opinions that might tear at that cohesiveness. Maintaining the good feelings that come from such cohesion become part of the group's "hidden agenda." The insulation of the policy-making group is another factor.

Frequently groupthinking groups are removed from interaction with others, perhaps because of their position within the organization. Lack of impartial leadership is a third contributing cause. When powerful leaders want to "get their way" they can overtly and covertly pressure the group into agreement. Finally, the lack of a template or protocol for decision making, or what Janis calls "norms requiring methodological procedures for dealing with decision making tasks," can also contribute to groupthink.

Group Think

“A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action." - Irving Janis

Groupthink occurs when the pressure to conform within a group interferes with that group's analysis of a problem and causes poor group decision making. Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness, as are the advantages that can sometimes be obtained by making a decision as a group—bringing different sources of ideas, knowledge, and experience together to solve a problem. Psychologist Irving Janis defines groupthink as: "a mode of thinking people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' striving for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressures." It can also refer to the tendency of groups to agree with powerful, intimidating bosses.

The concept of groupthink provides a summary explanation of reasons groups sometimes make poor decisions. Indeed, groups are supposed to be better than individuals at making complex decisions, because, through the membership, a variety of differing perspectives are brought to bear. Group members not only serve to bring new ideas into the discussion but also act as error-correcting mechanisms. Groups also provide social support, which is especially critical for new ideas. But when new perspectives are rejected (as in the "not invented here" syndrome), it is hard to correct errors. And if the social support is geared toward supporting the group's "accepted wisdom," the elements that can make groups better decision makers than individuals become inverted, and instead make them worse. Just as groups can work to promote effective thinking/decision making, the same processes which enhance the group's operation can backfire and lead to disastrous results.