fabulous Leadership - Planning For Chaos

Managers - fabulous Leadership - Planning For Chaos

Good morning. Yesterday, I learned all about Managers - fabulous Leadership - Planning For Chaos. Which is very helpful if you ask me and also you. fabulous Leadership - Planning For Chaos

I was working on a proposal this afternoon when the phone rang. It was my bookkeeper telling me that we needed to set up a meeting with one of our clients. In the midst of that call, an additional one client called to ask if I'd had time to chronicle her book. Finally, my wife called to let me know she was getting off work and was headed home. Being the love of my life, I chit-chatted with her for a diminutive while as she made her way onto the highway.

What I said. It is not the final outcome that the true about Managers. You check out this article for information about an individual want to know is Managers.

Managers

Each of these tasks took me away from the task that I had at hand for the afternoon: to perfect the proposal, chronicle it three times and send it out to the acceptable parties. With the interruptions I'd had throughout the afternoon, it took me twice as long to perfect the proposal, and some of the work I'd hoped to get done didn't get done when I wanted it to.

Now...what will that look like at the end of the year? It is kind of like watching a snow plow when it first begins animated snow...at first, it has a diminutive snow on the blade, rolling over and over. After a while, they are pushing show up six feet in the air, lumbering along, appearing as though they will never perfect their task.

Managing time, work and interruptions is a goal that so many habitancy have and fight with throughout the day. It becomes a game of priorities - what is right in front of them, what are habitancy request for the most, what looks animated and what is that thing that is permanently pushing to the back of my desk.

What would be animated would be learning how to administrate chaos. As in, provide room in your schedule for a clear whole of uncertainty or chaos. If we looked at time the way we look at manufacturing, we would say that we have a laxed output schedule, which allows for anomalies in the output line. From an additional one perspective, at times, we don't leave room in our schedules for other things.

Taking a concept from task Management, if we decide at the beginning of the week what requisite things must be done and by when (the requisite path), we begin to see a clearer photo of what can be done. So we stop seeing at how much gets done, and focus more on what prominent things get done, and ensure that they get done.

Think about a Ups driver. Their sole goal is to deliver packages. That is all they have to do. However, they run into problems such as traffic, customers who aren't where they are supposed to be, heavy loads and packages, damaged items, etc. Regardless of the interruption, once completed, they are clearly focused on their next goal.

Now, taking that a step further, they have four sets of priority deliveries - the early morning priority, the before 12:00 priority, firm deliveries (before 5:00) and residential deliveries (before 7:00). How likely is it that they will drop off a residential delivery before 8:00 am? What about dropping off a 12:00 delivery after 5:00? It's more likely that a residential delivery will be a day late then their missing an 8:00 delivery.

Why is that? Because they have an insight of priorities. They know what has to be delivered to who, when. They also understand chaos, and build it into their schedule, and update that schedule as things change. Therefore, putting together that presentation, uninterrupted, would regularly take two hours. However, with the realization that there are going to be unplanned events, maybe setting aside three hours to do the presentation is the best course of operation to take.

As an astonishing Leader, you've got to plan for the unexpected. At the same time, you've got to get things done. We don't have options when it comes to expectations. If our clients expect us to be late, expect our product or aid to be sub par, expect our customer aid to be inattentive, how can they expect us to be extraordinary?

I hope you get new knowledge about Managers. Where you possibly can offer easy use in your evryday life. And most significantly, your reaction is passed about Managers.

The Key to Leadership - It Lies With You - Not Your Hero

Managers - The Key to Leadership - It Lies With You - Not Your Hero

Good afternoon. Today, I found out about Managers - The Key to Leadership - It Lies With You - Not Your Hero. Which is very helpful in my experience and you. The Key to Leadership - It Lies With You - Not Your Hero

Who is your leadership hero? whether it is Gandhi, George Washington or even somebody more contemporary like Alan Sugar or Richard Branson, it is leading to strengthen upon those key traits you admire and come to be inspirational to your staff in your own right. Allow me to explain.

What I said. It is not in conclusion that the actual about Managers. You look at this article for information about anyone need to know is Managers.

Managers

In our line of work (executive coaching, administration and leadership development), we see many organisations whose staff have come to be disaffected, disengaged and demotivated by managers who are not aware of their own short comings. Managers may alienate staff by behaving in the following ways:

- Destroying passion and enthusiasm by over-controlling situations and micro-managing people
- Destroying trust by development unfair and irrational decisions
- Destroying cooperation by stereotyping the views and contributions of others
- Destroying open communication by being 'economical with the truth'
- Destroying working relationships with poor personal behaviour - being rude, aggressive or overly critical
- Destroying integrity by failing to deliver on promises and commitments
- Destroying studying and development by ignoring constructive feedback from others
- Destroying engagement by setting vague targets and plans for the future
- Destroying motivation by taking all the reputation for others' hard work
- Destroying creativity and innovation straight through obstinately keeping on to the old way of doing things

If a boss wishes to enhance team morale and productivity as well as encouraging promising individuals to reach for the sky, it is far easier and more impactful to an entire organisation if the leader himself changes aspects of his behaviour to inspire such changes.

Many managers would advantage from 'looking inwards' to assess their qualities and their flaws. This can be more accurately be assessed if you know how others view your leadership style. For example, are you viewed as efficient but ruling with an iron fist? The 'touchy feel-y' administration style isn't convenient for everyone, but you need to know if this iron fist you rule with makes you unapproachable and creates a atmosphere of fear.

Knowing the enemy is often half the battle, particularly if the enemy is destructive learned behaviours. Menagerial coaching provides the means for a boss to recognise the changes that need to be made and the sustain required whilst new approaches to administration are learned and actioned.

I hope you get new knowledge about Managers. Where you'll be able to put to used in your daily life. And most of all, your reaction is passed about Managers.

administration Vs. Leadership - An evaluation of Interdependence

administration Vs. Leadership - An evaluation of Interdependence

Managers Limited - administration Vs. Leadership - An evaluation of Interdependence Good evening. Today, I learned about Managers Limited - administration Vs. Leadership - An evaluation of Interdependence. Which may be very helpful in my opinion so you.

Abstract What I said. It isn't the actual final outcome that the actual about Managers Limited. You look at this article for facts about an individual want to know is Managers Limited. Managers Limited Leadership and supervision have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Over time leadership and supervision have been seen as isolate entities, but those times have past. It is this paper's intent to prove that good supervision is incumbent upon the success and capability of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor supervision that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success. From the great minds in supervision theory: Fayol, Taylor, and Weber; homage being paid to Barnard and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker and Porter; to the great minds in leadership development: Jung, McClelland and Burnham, this paper intends to peruse them all and bring them together as is required in this economy and these times. Much time, effort, and money has been placed into the study of both supervision and leadership successes. Mintzberg and Drucker have done some of the best and most informative work at bringing supervision and leadership together; now, with the rising costs of overhead and decreasing behalf margins, now is the time to connect the dots, once and for all. Leadership and supervision have been the focus of study and attention since the dawn of time. Reference biblical scripture that questions the leadership decisions of King David and the managerial prowess of Moses and his exodus to the "Promised Lands" (Cohen, 2007); Plato helped us to manage the Republic while Machiavelli helped us to formulate our idea of what a Prince should recount (Klosko, 1995); Shakespeare questioned Hamlet's decision manufacture (Augustine & Adelman, 1999) and trumpeted Henry Iv's managerial effectiveness (Corrigan, 1999). John Stuart Mill gave us the "shining city upon a hill", while Hegel taught us the "elements of the religious doctrine of right" and Marx taught us how to manage a people in his overly popularized (and oft misunderstood) manifestos (Klosko, 1995). Thomas Payne rewrote leadership to the basic levels of base Sense, while Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that in the supervision of a people, you must remember that "all men are created equal" and that they contend determined degree of"unalienable Rights". Countless others have come to the outside over the span of time, all promoting a new or improved way to both manage and lead their people. (And hopefully yours, too, if you're willing to pay for it.) However, straight through it all, one thing has remained constant; people are not autonomous entities that will retort the same to every situation. people are evolving, thinking, emotionally and socially aware of all that is nearby them; they are motivated straight through different methods and they are driven by differing levels of success (McClelland & Burnham, 1995). Over time, leadership and supervision have been seen as isolate entities, but no more: it is, therefore, this paper's intent to prove that good supervision is incumbent upon the success and capability of the leadership that drives it, and by proxy, so too will poor leadership bring poor supervision that will lead to poor results, and decreased levels of success. In today's fast paced environments, supervision requires leadership; you cannot have one without the other and still attain the success that you desire. Reference any supervision text or publication and you will inevitably come across the obligatory references to the great minds in supervision theory: Fayol - the first to recognize supervision as a "discipline" to be studied (Brunsson, 2008), Taylor's scientific supervision of market work and workers (Safferstone, 2006), and Weber's bureaucracy; homage must also be paid to Barnard, Kotter, Bennis, and Mayo, as well as Maslow, Mintzberg, Drucker, and Porter (Lamond, 2005). These great minds have helped to forge the way for the supervision field and helped to best supervision teams across the world. The world of "leadership study" carries quite the similar pedigree; ironically, it also carries many of the same names. It is, however, this author's idea that many of the additions to the pool of knowledge on leadership were not made known until the study of science of mind was made more fashionable by the likes of Freud and Jung. Management, it appears, is a tool to best the lowest line and productivity, whereas leadership is one of those studies that is to be improved straight through the person's capability to be in touch with their personality, traits, motives and effects on the human elements of productivity. There appears be some coincidence in the timing of the juxtaposition of the terms "management" and "leadership" and the correlation to the fact that most literature post 1950 seems to cross pollinate the two phrases. It is quite potential that this, the historical time for post war boom, is where output was at description highs and supervision of output was not as key as the supervision of people perhaps drawn from a public recognition that people were not to be managed, but rather, they were to be valued members of the team, and therefore, to be led - it is speculative, but it appears clear that entering the 1960's, most literature intertwines the "leaders" and the "managers" into the same professional classification. Carl Jung (1923) posits that people carry exact traits and that those traits cannot be altered. However, much time endeavor and money has been placed into the study of both supervision and leadership traits, tendencies, styles, and successes. Why is this? One belief is that Jung only half analyzes the man and that more than your traits influence your leadership potential (de Charon, 2003). This affords the opening for you to learn skills indispensable to come to be a best leader, even if that means comprehension who you are and what your tendencies are, in order to counteract them. Jung's work with personality traits has come to be the hallmark to virtually every professional development and personal development policy on the market. Jung stipulates that every man has any combination of sixteen different personality types. By definition, knowing these personality types helps you to best negotiate your way straight through the situation in order to attain the maximum output desired (Anastasi, 1998). Running in concert to Jung's ideas are those of Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg stipulates that much has changed since Fayol's assessment in 1916; gone are the days when the "picture of a owner was a reflective planner, organizer, leader, and controller" (Pavett & Lau, 1983). Mintzberg breaks the manager's job into ten roles, divided into three areas: interpersonal, informational, and decisional (2004): Interpersonal Roles Informational Roles Decisional Roles Figurehead Monitor Entrepreneur Leader Disseminator Disturbance handler Liaison Spokesperson Resource allocator Negotiator (Lussier & Achua, 2007). Ironically, in today's interpretation of a leader, one would be hard pressed to find a leader whom is unable to do all of the above, and then some. Mintzberg, in later publications, however, goes much additional in his assessment of managers and their roles in the organization. In a collaborative endeavor with Jonathon Gosling, the two rule the five mindsets of a owner (2003). They break the five mindsets into: 1. Managing self: the reflective mindset; where the productive owner is able to reflect upon the history (current and aged) to create a best future involving forward. 2. Managing the organization: the analytical mindset; here referencing a tennis match, where the owner must be cognizant of the crowd and their reaction, but also focusing on the ball itself. 3. Managing context: the worldly mindset; mental globally and looking for the unorthodox solution. 4. Managing relationships: the collaborative mindset; where the owner is able to engage the employees and moves beyond empowerment [which "implies that people who know the work best somehow receive the blessing of their managers to do it (Kibort, 2004)] into commitment. 5. Managing change: the performance mindset; "imagine your assosication as a chariot pulled by wild horses. These horses recount the emotions, aspirations, and motives of all the people in the organization. keeping a steady policy requires just as much skill in steering nearby to a new direction" (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003, p. 54-63). Gosling and Mintzberg end with one very involving point. They stipulate that, unlike Pavett & Lau (1983) that good managers are able to look beyond the desire to fix problems with straightforward reorganizations. In fact, they argue that hierarchy plays a very small role in the actual completion of tasks on the unit level and can only lead to more bureaucracy. Which leads one to ask the question: who is to faultless those unit level tasks and solve those problems related with people? There is no definitive definition of what leadership is, as it appears to convert form and focus for each private study. For the purposes of this paper, however, the definition set forth by Lussier & Achua (2007) seems to fit best: "Leadership is the influencing process of leaders and followers to achieve organizational objectives straight through change" (p.6). How do we correlate leadership and management? The base misconception is that it is something that should be compared "straight up", or "even Steven". Obviously, there are natural leaders and persons in positions of public authority throughout every facility, and yes, it is incumbent upon the managers and leaders to empower those people to maintain the widespread mission. Admittedly, some of these people may never come to be managers, but their role in the premise is of the utmost importance. However, as managers are an manufactures exact entity, it is ridiculous to try and correlate leadership to supervision outside of the constraint of the supervision role. Recognizing and accepting the constraint of the comparison, it must be acknowledged that in industry, you cannot have good leadership without good management; and in determined juxtaposition, poor leadership leads to poor success rates for the management. It seems apparent that our supervision staffs should combine on growing employees into leaders, to ultimately come to be managers; but if the managers themselves are not leaders yet, then much difficulties will soon befall upon that company. As Peter Drucker will tell you, it is imperative to build a strong supervision team, centered nearby strong leadership. In thinner times, gone are the days of two people for every position. Here are the days when a victorious enterprise is able to box good managerial skills into every leader, and good leadership skills into every manager. Failure to do so will ensue in failure to succeed. "Drucker devotes indispensable endeavor and space to defining the nature and role of management. This consulation also focuses on the nature and value of leadership in the organization. According to Drucker, leadership gives the assosication meaning, defines and nurtures its central values, creates a sense of mission, and builds the systems and processes that lead to victorious performance" (Wittmeyer, 2003). References Anastasi, Thomas (1998). Personality negotiating: conflict without casualty. Boston University, Boston, Ma: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Augustine, Norman & Adelman, Kenneth (1999). Shakespeare in charge: the bard's guide to leading and succeeding on the enterprise stage. New York, Ny: Hyperion Brunsson, K. (2008). Some Effects of Fayolism. International Studies of supervision & Organization, 38(1), 30-47. Cohen, Norman. (2007). Moses and the journey to leadership: always in vogue lessons of effective management from the Bible and today's leaders. Woodstock, Vt: Jewish Lights Publishing. Corrigan, Paul (1999). Shakespeare on management: leadership lessons for today's managers. Dover, Nh: Kogan Page Limited. de Charon, Linda. (2003). A transformational leadership development program: Jungian psychological types in dynamic flux. assosication development Journal, 21(3), 9-18. Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2003, November). The Five Minds of a Manager. (cover story). Harvard enterprise Review, 81(11), 54-63 Jung, Carl (1923) science of mind Types. New York, Ny: Harcourt Press Kibort, Phillip M (2004). supervision vs. Leadership. Physician Executive, 30(6), 32-35. Klosko, George (1995). History of political theory: an introduction. Volume Ii; contemporary political theory. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Group / Thomson Learning. Lamond, David. (2005) On the value of supervision history: involving the past to understand the gift and forewarn the future. supervision Decision, incorporating the Journal of Management History, 43, 10. Lussier, Robert N. & Achua, Christopher F. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development, 3e. Mason, Oh: Thomson Higher Education. McClelland D. & Burnham, D. H. (1995) Power is the great motivator. Harvard enterprise Review, January, 81(1), p117-126. Mintzberg, H. (2004, August). Leadership and supervision development: An afterword. Academy of supervision Executive, 18(3), 140-142. Pavett, C., & Lau, A. (1983, March). Managerial work: The influence of hierarchical level and functional specialty. Academy of supervision Journal, 26(1), 170-177 Safferstone, Mark J. (2006). Organizational Leadership: excellent Works and Contemporary Perspectives. Wittmeyer, C. (2003, August). The practice of Management: always in vogue Views and Principles. Academy of supervision Executive, 17(3), 13-15 I hope you have new knowledge about Managers Limited. Where you possibly can offer use in your life. And most importantly, your reaction is passed about Managers Limited. Read more.. administration Vs. Leadership - An evaluation of Interdependence.

Leadership - The Roles of Leaders vs. Managers in company

Leadership - The Roles of Leaders vs. Managers in company

Managers - Leadership - The Roles of Leaders vs. Managers in company Good afternoon. Today, I discovered Managers - Leadership - The Roles of Leaders vs. Managers in company. Which is very helpful in my opinion and you.

There has been a lot of politically precise pontificating of late in corporate circles about the differences between managers and leaders. Most of the commentary I have read attempts to please both audiences. Those of you who have read my work in the past know that I am rarely politically precise nor do I ever seek to try and please all the citizen all the time. What I said. It just isn't the final outcome that the actual about Managers . You check this out article for information on what you want to know is Managers . Managers While there is clearly a need for both managers and leaders in the firm world and while I respect and have advanced close friendships with many a manager, this author simply believes that the law of scarcity applies to the topic at hand. There is an infinitely greater furnish of managers causing a much greater quiz, for leaders. Put simply, because leaders are much more difficult to come by, they are therefore more necessary to an enterprise. The paragraph above begs the quiz, why are there fewer leaders than managers? I believe it is because not everyone has it in them to be a leader and thus the old axiom "a born leader". The intrinsic capability of leadership often begins with nothing more than raw talent and a inevitable state of mind. To possess the innate qualities of a leader is any way not the same thing as being a leader. As leading as your Dna is, productive leadership skills are advanced and refined by time, experience, and a true desire to be more than just a manager, but a true leader. Let's breakdown the Dna of a typical leader...A leader is commonly a very creative, dynamic, outgoing and unflappable individual. They tend to think big picture focusing on foresight and strategy while looking to make a long-term impact. By way of divergence let's explore the Dna of a manager. Managers are commonly more analytical while focusing on process and course looking to make short-term contributions. The following list adapted from Mind of a Manager, Soul of a Leader by Craig Hickman, John Wiley & Sons, demonstrates the Dna gap between leaders and managers: Managers build systems and procedures, Leaders build teams and originate talent. Managers surround themselves with subordinates & Leaders surround themselves with the best & brightest. Managers avoid risk and Leaders thrive on risk. Managers find relieve in the status quo & Leaders serve as a catalyst for change & growth. Managers determine for industry approved & Leaders quiz, the best. Managers wield power while Leaders apply influence. Managers control & Leaders inspire. Managers formulate course & Leaders set examples. Managers instruct...Leaders mentor. Managers are reactive while Leaders are proactive. Managers plan...Leaders innovate. Managers refine...Leaders revolutionize. Managers reorganize...Leaders reinvent. Managers pursue the tangible while Leaders seek the intangible. We have all witnessed companies that have been over managed in the absence of leadership. When leadership has been abdicated to administration in a corporate setting you will all the time find that increase slows, morale declines, creativity wanes and the competing edge is weakened. That being said, I have personally experienced the value of true leadership at every stage of my life from the athletic playing field, to the forces battleground to the corporate boardroom. Let's look at an example of the value of leadership from each of the three areas: o An example from the world of athletics...If you were the owner of an Nfl franchise and had to pick between having the #1 quarterback in the league or the #1 town in league what would your option be? Again this doesn't mean that a great town isn't valuable, it just means that the role player isn't as necessary to the team as having the talent factor and leadership characteristics of a true impact player. simply reflect back upon your own life experiences and you'll see that you have come across many utility players over the years, but very few franchise players. o A forces example...Contrast if you will the differences of two enlisted men of the same rank. The fist is a sergeant in a headquarters unit charged with the menagerial sustain of a firm commander. The second sergeant is a combat controller in a special operations unit charged with coordinating air strikes from the ground behind enemy lines. While both of the enlisted men described above hold the same rank, are part of a team, and play leading roles, one is clearly an impact player in a leadership capacity while the other is solely a utility player acting in a administration capacity. The forces has thought about that it is a rare private who exhibits the characteristics necessary to come to be a member of a special operations unit. Therefore they are willing to make a much larger speculation in the combat controller and in return the forces expects a much larger contribution from that individual. o A corporate example...This example will be short and sweat, but hopefully very clear in its statement of impact. Who do you believe is of greater value and makes a larger contribution to a corporation, person who administers course and creates processes or person who sets the foresight and creates the strategy? Just explore the divergence in the pay stubs of the two individuals contrasted above and you'll fast see who the firm deems to be of higher value. I want to be clear that I am not "anti" manager. I am any way very "pro" leadership when it comes to optimizing the talent factor in any organization. My bias toward leadership doesn't mean that I don't understand the principles behind such truisms as: "there is no "I" in team" or, "the sum of the parts is greater than the whole" or that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." Rather it simply means that I believe you achieve a much greater return on human capital with investments made into leadership due to the scope and scale of the impact that a leader can make. The lowest line is that I prefer to lead rather than conduct and to be led rather than to be managed. I hope you have new knowledge about Managers . Where you'll be able to put to utilization in your day-to-day life. And most of all, your reaction is passed about Managers . Read more.. Leadership - The Roles of Leaders vs. Managers in company.

Why sell Businesses Fail Part 2: Lack of "Level Five" Leadership

Why sell Businesses Fail Part 2: Lack of "Level Five" Leadership

Manager - Why sell Businesses Fail Part 2: Lack of "Level Five" Leadership Hi friends. Yesterday, I discovered Manager - Why sell Businesses Fail Part 2: Lack of "Level Five" Leadership. Which is very helpful for me therefore you.

Jim Collins, in his book "Good to Great", introduced the plan of "level five leadership". Agreeing to Mr. Collins; "The key to an club becoming great is having a "Level Five Leader" - person who blends genuine personal humility with intense expert will - leaders at the other four levels in the hierarchy can furnish high levels of success but not adequate to elevate organizations from mediocrity to sustained excellence". What I said. It is not the actual final outcome that the real about Manager. You check this out article for facts about a person need to know is Manager. Manager This may sound conceptual or theoretical, but it is not. Many of the best sell executives are level four leaders. They furnish a burst of results for a short period then fade away. Most sell executives are good sales population but bad firm people. They can sell ice to an Eskimo yet they do not know how to run a sell business. There is a basic incompatibility in the middle of being a sell expert and a firm person. Being a sell expert requires an understanding of all the nuances of retail. However, the potential to run a thriving sell firm requires the application of clear universal firm principles. Such ideas are absent from all of the failed or struggling sell organisation because the leaderships in those organisation lack an understanding of those principles. Tesco is the third most profitable firm in the Uk and the second most profitable retailer in the world. Why is Tesco, a retailer, the third most profitable firm in the Uk? Tesco once had a "Level Five Leader" who transformed an lowly Uk sell organisation into a global sell giant. The idea that sell executives are good sales population but bad firm population might sound counter-intuitive, therefore, let me enlarge on this plan with the following analogy. Many accountants are nothing else but good at what they do as accountants. They can take one look at a statement of accounts and tell either it is accurate. However, many accounting businesses fail. Why do accounting businesses fail when accountants are good money managers? It is because accountancy is a profession and like most professions; it is wholly separate from a business. A similar case can be made about sell executives. Many sell Ceo's and executives are master retailers who know the ins and outs of retail. They sleep and breathe retail. They took the time to learn sell but did not take the time to learn the sell business; which is a major hypothesize why many sell businesses fail. You can pluck a good firm person from any firm and make him a sell administrative and he will be able to accomplish great than most sell executives. The fundamentals of firm are universal they never change. Let me enlarge on this point with the following examples: Microsoft is not a thriving firm because they make the best software in the world. It is thriving because Bill Gates, a shrewd businessman, formed alliances with major corporations and government institutions. There were many hunt engines in existence before the advent of Google. Why is Google more thriving than all of them? Google's firm model was and is great than the rest. Facebook was not the first group media site yet Facebook dominates group media. Why? Facebook has a great firm model than the rest. McDonald's sells hamburgers. Does whatever believe that McDonald's is thriving because it makes the best hamburger in the world? No way! McDonald's is the world's foremost fast food firm because it has the best firm ideas in the world. The point I tried to make with the above examples, (whether it is Microsoft, Google, Facebook or McDonald's) it is not their products or services that made those clubs the leaders in their commerce neither are they thriving because of the industries in which they operate; they are thriving because of their firm models and good leadership. The Ceo of Apple could go to any sell chain and make it as thriving as Apple. Success in firm is not dependent on the industry. However, it is dependent on the following four key components: 1. Good leadership. 2. Good talent. 3. Good system. 4. Good marketing system. The hypothesize why Tesco and Holland & Barrett are the third and fourth most profitable businesses in the Uk is because they have these four components in place. I did not say they are the third and fourth most profitable retailers in the Uk, I said they are the third and fourth most profitable businesses in the Uk. Business success transcends commerce it is dependent on: • Good leadership. • Great people. • Good system. • Good marketing system. In most cases only "Level Five Leaders" have the potential to create these four components. I hope you will get new knowledge about Manager. Where you can offer used in your day-to-day life. And most importantly, your reaction is passed. Read more.. Why sell Businesses Fail Part 2: Lack of "Level Five" Leadership.