David Morales an eight year old adorned a baseball cap with some of his toy soldiers and wore it to school as part of his show and tell presentation in support of the troops. For that he was told he couldn’t were the hat because it violated the school zero tolerance policy around weapons.

Any of you familiar these small plastic figures – that have been around for years – fully understand that this claim is as ridiculous as they come.  You would think any teacher would have the common sense to know these figures offer no threat of violence and that their little rifles are completely incapable of firing a shot.

When I read about this I remembered my childhood and how I use to carry one of my favorite toy soldiers with me, that had a flame thrower. I can only image what would happen to me if today’s rules applied when I was David’s age. For that matter, some of the pictures I drew of pretend battle scenes would have clearly been my invitation to have a front row seat in the school’s psychologist office. I can only think it was because I grew up during the Korean Conflict – the war that wasn’t a war.

One has to ask are these teachers so lacking of common sense they are incapable of thinking about what truly constitutes a weapon that would meet the criteria they claimed these toy soldiers did. In his blog Alan Weiss refers to it as “dumb-ass stupid management.”  Not only do I agree, but it is as General Honore said “it’s being stuck on stupid.” You’re stuck on stupid when you look at a three inch toy and equate that toy to a violation of a zero weapons tolerance policy which is clearly designed and developed to deal with real weapons.

I would like to think that our teachers, our educators understand the concept of critical thinking you know the ability to assess and comprehend a situation and apply a logical and reasonable solution to addressing the problem facing them. But this most recent example clearly demonstrates those we call teachers are in tremendous need of being taught not only the concepts of critical thinking but need a heavy dose of common sense added to the process.

However, we may have ourselves to blame. For every David Morales story, there are stories about parents coming in to challenge the teachers about a grade given to their precious little Johnny or Suzy saying it will impact their ability to get into Harvard even though their kid is only in the second grade.

As ridiculous this story is, we have to get back to having some level of reason in how we train our teachers and how we act toward them. What happen to David Morales, is beyond ridiculous, common sense must prevail, for if it doesn’t we’re going to continue to be stuck on stupid.

Recently I wrote about the doorman strike in New York. In a recently published Op-Ed piece in the New York Times James Collins pointed out: “they provide an extra layer of face-to-face social connection that is not strictly “necessary,” but is tremendously gratifying nonetheless.” These comments reminded me of statements I’ve heard about top managers and company leaders.

Similar to tenants who depend on their doormen for that “face-to-face social connection” a growing number of senior managers have defaulted to their staffs looking to them to provide that level of connection with employees, becoming overly dependant on carefully scrubbed management reports, or on surveys results that rarely are enacted.

While the size of the company can be a factor that prevents senior management from getting to know all their employees, it doesn’t prevent them from gaining an understanding about what their employees have to deal with while working at for their company perhaps taking a hint from the CBS program Undercover Boss would provide some guidance and assistance in that area.  

This show provides a great example of CEO’s of well known companies going out into the field – undercover – to find out what it’s like for the people who work for them. No filtering of information they are getting it straight the real deal as one would say.

If you’re a leader in your company getting to know what you’re people have to deal with on a daily basis just to meet the demands you put forth to help make the company profitable is extremely valuable. Having that information filter through doorman like managers is a luxury that you should skip because there is nothing like getting it directly trust me, you’ll be much better leader and manager.

© Timothy A. Wilson All Rights Reserved.

Lately there has been a great deal of talk about accountability but does anyone really know what it means? The word accountable means to render an account. It surely seems that’s how the majority of people view accountability, – rendering an accounting for one’s actions.

But it seems so reactive. It’s after the fact it comes about, after the damage has been done. It implies that one should have known or anticipated the potential for failure and because you didn’t you will be held accountable and punish for your lack of foresight. It’s as if accountability = punishment. Is there any wonder why people shy away from taking a leadership position?

Developing an environment where people are encouraged to act in a proactive manner where accountability is viewed the way the authors of The Oz Principle define it, “A personal choice to rise above one’s circumstances and demonstrate the ownership for achieving desired results.”  Will provide the encouragement people need to view accountability as something not to fear but rather embrace. (http://tawilsonassociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Ten-Steps-to-Convincing-Your-Team-That-Accountability-Isnt-a-Bad-Word.pdf)

When Messrs Connors, Smith & Hickman laid out this definition they provided us with the means to view accountability in a proactive manner, that would – hopefully – lead to people taking the initiative to move forward because they were empowered and did not have to wait to be told what to do. It’s this type of accountability that gives us the stories about Nordstrom employees, who wrap Christmas gifts for customers, bought at other stores, or how a Ritz Carlton hotel manager flew to a customer’s house to deliver a reimbursement check because their hotel laundry failed to remove a stain from the customer’s suit before he left.

To invoke this level of accountability requires a management team that encourages individuals to take ownership of the situation. To be willing to move proactively and not fall back on the common refrain, “it’s not my job.” It means that the management team must clearly lay out what they mean by accountability. It means that they demonstrate – by example – the type of accountability they expect from their direct reports.

By being exemplars of the proactive accountability they are showing they indeed know what accountability means.

© T.A.Wilson & Associates All Rights Reserved.