It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the samemeeting I was?”

Bluepoint Leadership Board Chairman Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes - “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them - that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

• Constituents understand what has been communicated
• Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
• Constituents care about what has been communicated.
• Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

For the source of this article, click here.

It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the samemeeting I was?”

Bluepoint Leadership Board Chairman Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes - “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them - that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

• Constituents understand what has been communicated
• Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
• Constituents care about what has been communicated.
• Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

For the source of this article, click here.

It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the samemeeting I was?”

Bluepoint Leadership Board Chairman Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes - “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them - that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

• Constituents understand what has been communicated
• Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
• Constituents care about what has been communicated.
• Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

For the source of this article, click here.

It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the samemeeting I was?”

Bluepoint Leadership Board Chairman Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes - “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them - that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

• Constituents understand what has been communicated
• Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
• Constituents care about what has been communicated.
• Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

For the source of this article, click here.

It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the samemeeting I was?”

Bluepoint Leadership Board Chairman Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes - “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them - that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

• Constituents understand what has been communicated
• Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
• Constituents care about what has been communicated.
• Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

For the source of this article, click here.

It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the samemeeting I was?”

Bluepoint Leadership Board Chairman Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes - “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them - that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

• Constituents understand what has been communicated
• Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
• Constituents care about what has been communicated.
• Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

For the source of this article, click here.

It’s a common enough occurrence in any organization in the minutes immediately following a high-level meeting.

Two of the participants leave the boardroom together and as they travel down the hallway they begin discussing that report by the CEO, the sales managers forecast, a fellow executive’s proposal and the ensuing discussion, or anything else they happened to hear at the meeting.

After a minute or two of comparing notes, the two colleagues suddenly stop in their tracks, turn towards each and sigh. It’s clear from their identical, somewhat pained, expressions that they’re both thinking the same thing: “Were you in the samemeeting I was?”

Bluepoint Leadership Board Chairman Ron Crossland writes that whenever he addresses a group of managers he always asks them if they have experienced this scenario, and every time he gets unanimous assent. He stresses that he’s not talking here of the more understandable occurrence where one executive’s opinion of what the speaker had been saying differs from that of his colleagues. This is another case. What one participant at the meeting actually hears the speaker say, is different from what his or her colleague hears.

This kind of experience, laments Crossland, is the inevitable outcome of four mistakes - “common, ordinary and understandable things”, as he call them - that people in the echelons of power make when they are leading and communicating. These errors, are at the “root of most miscommunication, most continuing disagreement, and most inaction or alternative action, some of which may cause considerable rework”.

These mistakes, which are so frequent that they’re often made without any conscious thought, take the form of four fatal assumptions that leaders automatically make after they have communicated something, or at the end of a meeting. These leaders honestly believe that:

• Constituents understand what has been communicated
• Constituents agree with what has been communicated.
• Constituents care about what has been communicated.
• Constituents know how to act against what has been communicated.

Fortunately and interestingly, once these same leaders become conscious of what they are doing and begin to realize the big mess that their faulty assumptions have created, they are easily enough able to work out appropriate solutions. Crossland’s own analysis and suggestions are well worth reading in full.

One thing is for certain: there’s no greater enemy to effective communication than the human tendency to take things for granted. Who says that the intended act of communication has taken place at all?

For the source of this article, click here.

For the third year, Leadership Excellence magazine has released its ranking of the best Leadership Development programs in the country.
Bluepoint rated # 5 in this year’s survey - up from #10 in 2007. “This survey is a great benchmark reference for companies out there looking at leadership development options. We are delighted to be on the list, and moving up,” says David Parks, VP of Business Development.

“Every organization benefits from developing its people through some program or process,” says Ken Shelton, editor since 1984. “The best programs are designed to deliver outcomes aligned with the vision and strategy. They build bench strength–a pipeline of people who are prepared to step up and lead out when the calls comes or the opportunity arises.”

Divided into seven different categories, the top ten consultants/trainers/coaches firms are:

1. Zenger/Folkman
2. Goldsmith/Katzenbach Partners
3. Korn/Ferry/Leadersource
4. Jim Collins
5. Bluepoint Leadership
6. Ninth House
7. Human Performance Institute
8. Synthesis/Leaders Toolbox
9. Marcus Buckingham Company
10. Tom Peters Company

Leadership Excellence Selection Criteria

Considering hundreds of programs, Shelton selected 160 based on seven criteria:

1. Vision/mission. Are these statements linked to strategy, meaningful to participants, and focused on target outcomes?

2. Involvement and participation. How broad is the involvement and how deep the participation?

3. Measurement and accountability. What ROI measures are made and reported and to what degree is accountability for performance and results part of the program?

4. Design, content, and curriculum. How well designed is the program? How credible is the content? How relevant is the curriculum? How customized is the program?

5. Presenters, presentations, and delivery. What are the qualifications of the presenters, how effective are their presentations, and how is the program delivered?

6. Take-home value. What do participants take away and apply to improve themselves, their families, their teams, and their volunteer work?

7. Outreach, outcomes. What is the impact of the program on the organization and its various stakeholders?

“Having this criteria,” says Shelton, “helps us to weed out those programs that may be well intentioned but lack substance and fail to deliver promised results.”
Each top program selected receives a certificate honoring their achievement. For more information on the 2008 leadership rankings, visit www.leaderexcel.com. ]]> http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/bluepoint-awards-and-accolades/top-leadership-development-programs-in-north-america-2008/feed/ http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/bluepoint-awards-and-accolades/top-leadership-development-programs-in-north-america-2008/ http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/bluepoint-awards-and-accolades/top-leadership-development-programs-in-north-america-2008/#comments Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:25:10 +0000 admin http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/?p=1

For the third year, Leadership Excellence magazine has released its ranking of the best Leadership Development programs in the country.
Bluepoint rated # 5 in this year’s survey - up from #10 in 2007. “This survey is a great benchmark reference for companies out there looking at leadership development options. We are delighted to be on the list, and moving up,” says David Parks, VP of Business Development.

“Every organization benefits from developing its people through some program or process,” says Ken Shelton, editor since 1984. “The best programs are designed to deliver outcomes aligned with the vision and strategy. They build bench strength–a pipeline of people who are prepared to step up and lead out when the calls comes or the opportunity arises.”

Divided into seven different categories, the top ten consultants/trainers/coaches firms are:

1. Zenger/Folkman
2. Goldsmith/Katzenbach Partners
3. Korn/Ferry/Leadersource
4. Jim Collins
5. Bluepoint Leadership
6. Ninth House
7. Human Performance Institute
8. Synthesis/Leaders Toolbox
9. Marcus Buckingham Company
10. Tom Peters Company

Leadership Excellence Selection Criteria

Considering hundreds of programs, Shelton selected 160 based on seven criteria:

1. Vision/mission. Are these statements linked to strategy, meaningful to participants, and focused on target outcomes?

2. Involvement and participation. How broad is the involvement and how deep the participation?

3. Measurement and accountability. What ROI measures are made and reported and to what degree is accountability for performance and results part of the program?

4. Design, content, and curriculum. How well designed is the program? How credible is the content? How relevant is the curriculum? How customized is the program?

5. Presenters, presentations, and delivery. What are the qualifications of the presenters, how effective are their presentations, and how is the program delivered?

6. Take-home value. What do participants take away and apply to improve themselves, their families, their teams, and their volunteer work?

7. Outreach, outcomes. What is the impact of the program on the organization and its various stakeholders?

“Having this criteria,” says Shelton, “helps us to weed out those programs that may be well intentioned but lack substance and fail to deliver promised results.”
Each top program selected receives a certificate honoring their achievement. For more information on the 2008 leadership rankings, visit www.leaderexcel.com. ]]> http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/bluepoint-awards-and-accolades/top-leadership-development-programs-in-north-america-2008/feed/ http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/bluepoint-awards-and-accolades/top-leadership-development-programs-in-north-america-2008/ http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/bluepoint-awards-and-accolades/top-leadership-development-programs-in-north-america-2008/#comments Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:25:10 +0000 admin http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/?p=1

For the third year, Leadership Excellence magazine has released its ranking of the best Leadership Development programs in the country.
Bluepoint rated # 5 in this year’s survey - up from #10 in 2007. “This survey is a great benchmark reference for companies out there looking at leadership development options. We are delighted to be on the list, and moving up,” says David Parks, VP of Business Development.

“Every organization benefits from developing its people through some program or process,” says Ken Shelton, editor since 1984. “The best programs are designed to deliver outcomes aligned with the vision and strategy. They build bench strength–a pipeline of people who are prepared to step up and lead out when the calls comes or the opportunity arises.”

Divided into seven different categories, the top ten consultants/trainers/coaches firms are:

1. Zenger/Folkman
2. Goldsmith/Katzenbach Partners
3. Korn/Ferry/Leadersource
4. Jim Collins
5. Bluepoint Leadership
6. Ninth House
7. Human Performance Institute
8. Synthesis/Leaders Toolbox
9. Marcus Buckingham Company
10. Tom Peters Company

Leadership Excellence Selection Criteria

Considering hundreds of programs, Shelton selected 160 based on seven criteria:

1. Vision/mission. Are these statements linked to strategy, meaningful to participants, and focused on target outcomes?

2. Involvement and participation. How broad is the involvement and how deep the participation?

3. Measurement and accountability. What ROI measures are made and reported and to what degree is accountability for performance and results part of the program?

4. Design, content, and curriculum. How well designed is the program? How credible is the content? How relevant is the curriculum? How customized is the program?

5. Presenters, presentations, and delivery. What are the qualifications of the presenters, how effective are their presentations, and how is the program delivered?

6. Take-home value. What do participants take away and apply to improve themselves, their families, their teams, and their volunteer work?

7. Outreach, outcomes. What is the impact of the program on the organization and its various stakeholders?

“Having this criteria,” says Shelton, “helps us to weed out those programs that may be well intentioned but lack substance and fail to deliver promised results.”
Each top program selected receives a certificate honoring their achievement. For more information on the 2008 leadership rankings, visit www.leaderexcel.com. ]]> http://www.bluepointleadership.com/news/bluepoint-awards-and-accolades/top-leadership-development-programs-in-north-america-2008/feed/