Leadership and Most Favored Status

You're familiar with the Most Favored Nation status that countries use to give import tariff breaks to those countries that they want to support for some reason. I believe the US granted China MFN status, which is a good thing since everything we purchase seems to come from China these days. Even if you aren't a tariff genius (and I know nothing about tariffs) you can understand that a country that has Most Favored Nation status must be, well, more favored than a country that has, say, Not So Favored Nation status. Or "We Don't Like You" status. Someone is getting a better deal than someone else.

Special status sometimes applies in a corporate setting too. It's not supposed to, but we're all adults here so let's admit that it does. Some companies might grant unofficial status to, oh let's say the Pretty and Studly group. The photogenic get special consideration in some way. Perhaps they get to work from home while others must adhere to policy and schlep in to their dismal little cube day after day. Perhaps the "I Used to Work For The Boss" group gets special consideration - a nicer office and invitations to corporate events. You know what I mean.

Let's say, in an entirely hypothetical situation, that someone has special status. I'm just making this up to make a point about leadership under duress. It's entirely hypothetical. Perhaps this person belongs to that most revolting of Most Favored Groups, the Brownnosers. They have no special skill, but through diligent application of sucking up to the right people at the right time, they have advanced their career far beyond where it should be.

Perhaps our entirely hypothetical person has even pulled the old "If you don't promote me I'll quit" stunt, and succeeded. Shame, in a not hypothetical way, on the HR Department for falling for such an act of corporate terrorism. But our Brownnoser has managed to move himself or herself into a position of responsibility. Much is expected of them. They are going to be expected to lead the organization through some difficult changes. They must be able to communicate effectively with hundreds of other staff members, and must be able to sell the changes. They must build trust within different departments.

What happens when our entirely hypothetical person screws up? I'm not talking about putting a dinner on an expense account that wasn't business related. That's stupid, but that can be handled with a stern warning and restitution. No, I'm talking about some screwup that goes out to the entire organization, that makes it nearly impossible for the rest of the company to have any respect for this person. Let me try to think of an example.

Suppose an email goes out to all hands explaining a process. Further suppose that our MFB (Most Favored Brownnoser) sends a reply to his mentor that people in the company are too stupid to understand the memo. And in a way that only the gods understand, our MFB hits the "Reply To All" button, sending that email to every, and I mean every person in the company.

Yeah, you know what would happen if you sent the email. You aren't in a Most Favored Group, so you would be packing your bags and out the door. HR would be wearing their most serious frown, perhaps even a scowl as they goosestep you out the door. But what about the MFB? How will senior management (leadership) handle the situation? What is proper and effective damage control when someone who allegedly represents senior management tells 90% of the employees that they are stupid? I mean, didn't your mom ever tell you not to call someone stupid? Isn't the "No Asshole" Rule built for situations like this?

We've had this hypothetical discussion lately. Some think an apology is sufficient. Some think it will blow over if it is forgotten. Me, I think something like this will never be forgotten by the ones that were the recipients of the email. To me, management must be decisive. They must make a clear and public statement that such attitudes will not be tolerated, and the MFB needs to find work somewhere else. To me, that's a firing offense.

Consider the plight to the late Gov. Elliott Spitzer, formerly of New York. Gov. Spitzer was found to have spent large sums of money on ladies of the evening. Not very attractive ladies of the evening either, if you ask me, but perhaps I don't understand the market. And because Gov. Spitzer was caught canoodling with a woman other than Mrs. Spitzer, he was forced by public opinion to resign.

There are some who ask why he had to resign for this. He didn't use government funds. He didn't use government resources, like the limo or the mansion for his affairs. It was his cash and his time. Why should what he does in his free time reflect on his ability to govern?

Such talk is very naive. In public life, everything you do reflects on your ability to govern. And when you climb the corporate ladder, the same rules come into play. You have what lawyers call a "higher duty of care" to the company. And part of that duty of care is to always present a positive and professional image externally and internally. And if you screw up big time, the price you pay is your job.

But our hypothetical case is a Special Person. Should management sweep it under the rug? Should they punish with a slap on the wrist? I say that if they do, they have abdicated their responsibilities as leaders. A case like this needs to leave no doubt in the mind of others what the attitude of the corporate leadership is. They need to say "We will not tolerate this from anyone" and dismiss the individual. Failure to act would send a message that leadership agrees with the concept that most of the staff are stupid. They therefore have no right to expect any reasonable level of performance from that staff. After all, they are "stupid".

Sometimes, even the littlest of errors can entrap us. But that's life. The senior management of an organization has a responsibility to many stakeholders - shareholders, banks, customers, suppliers, and even employees. Tom Peters, writing about the perception customers have of certain products, said "Perception is all there is." And that applies to everything. If employees perceive their work isn't valued, they will turn in work that is worthless. Much of leadership deals with the management of perceptions. If an incorrect perception isn't corrected, it will fester and grow like a cancer, and can even consume the organization.

Spitzer didn't wait for the next election to step down. In our example of Bill Marsh's leadership on the Canadian Everest Team, he didn't wait for team members to make up their minds, then let them hang around to poison the group with negativity. It was make a decision now, then act on it. I may have an entirely hypothetical post on what action our entirely hypothetical company leadership might take in a few days.

What do you think?

Visual Thinking

I'm trying not to be negative about the HR cost reduction idea generator request. But I find myself wavering between bursting into hysterical laughter and bursting into tears.

Have I mentioned that our company has an official ban on the use of whiteboards? You know, the things that people gather around and scribble ideas on, and draw value streams and process maps and that kind of thing? I'm sure I have. The Chairman doesn't like them. He thinks they are unclean. I wonder if we had been doing some value streams on a whiteboard we wouldn't need to beg for some cost cutting ideas.

I'm very big on visual thinking. You can tell a person how to get from A to Z, but if you draw a map it's much easier, isn't it? Many people say "Oh, I'm not a visual person." What they mean is they aren't artistic, or they can't draw. But when you use images to plan a work process, no one cares about artistic ability. While we might have different learning styles - some learn best by reading, some by watching, some by seeing and doing - we all have some intrinsic visual learning ability. Unless you're visually challenged, of course.

And I wrote earlier how the Canadian Mount Everest Expedition got its start on the back of a napkin in a Camrose tavern. So I was very interested to see a new book by Dan Roam called The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures. Here's what Publisher's Weekly wrote:

"The premise behind Roam's book is simple: anybody with a pen and a scrap of paper can use visual thinking to work through complex business ideas. Management consultant and lecturer Roam begins with a “watershed moment”: asked, at the last minute, to give a talk to top government officials, he sketched a diagram on a napkin. The clarity and power of that image allowed him to communicate directly with his audience."

Power. Clarity. Words have them but pictures have them even more. That's the premise behind the axiom "A picture is worth a thousand words." That's why processes like Value Stream Mapping are based on a visual map of the process, so you see every step and can cut out the ones that are wasteful. Maybe if just one of the conference rooms had a whiteboard, some group would be generating ideas of power and clarity. Just a thought.

So we've taken away the tool that allows people to express themselves visually. And now we wonder why we are in a bit of a rut, shall we say. I wonder if, when we removed the visual tools, we sent a message that we didn't want people to share ideas. In any case, we further ingrained the silo mentality we have. Not only is there less communication between departments, there is less within departments.

In any case, another memo came out from the same Captain of Industry. It had the classic elements of an HR memo as written on page 174 of the HR Person's Communication Manual:

1. Obligatory condescending note of thanks - "Oh, you had some REALLY good ideas". Does that mean we aren't as stupid as you thought we were?
   
2. Mandatory rah rah: "We know you have lots more ideas."
3. Pitiful begging: "So please send them to us", because we ran out of new ideas years ago.
4. Wave the carrot: "Three extra days of PTO". Which you won't have time to use anyway.
   

Here's another thing. Isn't it the responsibility of every employee and every manager to constantly look for ways to improve their work processes, cut costs and eliminate waste? Call me irrational, but isn't that implicit in the employment agreement - "We are hiring you to do this job, and if you can see any way to do it better, we'd like to hear it." Well, now that I've written that, I can see that I'm not being rational. that might be the imagery companies present. But many in many organizations the reality is "Here's your job. Shut up and do it."

When Tom Peters and Bob Waterman wrote "In Search of Excellence" a lifetime ago, their research demonstrated the importance of perception. Peters often says that "perception is all there is". In other words the facts don't matter too much. If consumers, or employees, have a certain perception of a product or a company, that perception will overrule rational thought. Much of management is the management of perceptions. If the employees get the idea that the company is screwing them, or the company is lieing to them, the perception will overrule fact. Managers need to respond to wrong perceptions with facts, honesty, speed and truth.

These are difficult times. I don't care if you think we are in a recession or not. We are certainly in difficult times. And difficult times call for strong management. Companies that have been managed by weaklings will fall by the wayside. Remember the old keyboarding exercise "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country"? What, they don't teach that any more? Anyway, now is the time for managers to step up to the plate and show their mettle.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

I'm befuddled....

An email came out to all hands today. Under the imprint of the VP of HR, it asked for suggestions for cost reduction in the company. I have never been so embarrassed in my life. It read like a plaintive cry for help from those left on board the Titanic as the bow started to point toward the sky.

Even more shameful was the water cooler talk about the memo. I'm left with no doubt why we are struggling. A vast majority of our employees are 15 watt bulbs in a 60 watt fixture. Some thought that they would be more productive if they could wear jeans to work. Some thought that the coffee rooms were boring. Not one single person mentioned an idea that might make work flow more smoothly. No one had any thoughts that would eliminate waste. Everyone thought about themselves.

Oh, and everyone was unanimous in the suggestion that we should cut 5 VP jobs. But invoking the Wayne Gretzky Rule, you can't submit that idea.

We have avoided building a culture that promotes creativity and waste reduction in the workplace. Instead, we have allowed empire building and silo management. Now we are paying the price for that. And one memo asking for your best cost reduction idea isn't going to produce anything of significant merit. Oh, the prize for your suggestion is 3 extra days PTO. With the stern caveat that it has to be taken this year. I haven't taken all my PTO in any year I've been employed here.

I'm saddened by the approach taken by senior management. I'm saddened by the response of the employees. There are some skilled, talented hard working people in our company. But that could be said for the passengers on the Titanic too. This is a time for strong, decisive leadership. Instead, we get a memo from HR (HR? You can outsource all those roles PDQ).

I guess I should have seen it coming. It's happened in the past. Those responsible for leadership in some areas manage to slide under the radar until the storm passes, then they rise up again to bask in the limelight and take credit for the work of others. Would anyone like a nice cold glass of orange juice?

A number of years ago, I had an opportunity to work with the consulting company Cresap. I led a team of 12 managers on a project to take $3 million in expenses off our bottom line in the logistics and warehousing areas. We took $4.5 million at the end of the project. It took us 90 days to study and implement the plan. Other teams attacked different parts of the company - sales, corporate structure, everything was fair game. In the end, we took about 17% off the expenses line. And the savings stuck. It was a fantastic experience for me.

One of the main rules was that anything goes. If the team decides that some sacred cow has been around too long, they could put it on the chopping block. Thus, I said goodbye to our department's use of a suite at the Saddledome. Our Warehouse Manager had claimed for years that suppliers would not ship direct. One phone call to a supplier revealed that not only would they ship next day direct, they would pay the freight on any order over $200. We said goodbye to 2 warehouses.

No, it takes more than a memo from HR to generate effective cost control measures. I fear we don't have the right stuff to implement what needs to be done.

Some People Only Want the Shirt

Our company has a slow pitch softball team. That's not unique, but I've found the dynamics of the team interesting and wanted to share some thoughts.

There were lots of guys sign up. You have to have 9 for a team and ten players can take the field. It looked like we'd have no trouble fielding a full team. But signing up and showing up are two completely different things. Sound familiar? When there's a great, fun project at work that is going to attract a lot of attention, everybody wants to be on the team. But when there's heavy work to do, or when the team gets bogged down in minutiae or details, or politics, all of a sudden there aren't so many show up at the meetings.

There have been a few games where we didn't have a full complement of company employees to take the field. Fortunately, we've had husbands, cousins and neighbors show up and have been able to at least take the field. Where are the company team members? Well, some are ill, some have work commitments. Those are reasonable excuses. But some... let's just say that some are just there for the shirt. The game starts too late. It might rain. I've got the sniffles. When the going got tough, they stayed home.

We're not going to win any championships. In fact, we'll be ecstatic if we win a game! We're there for a good time. We're in the "C" division which is home to the beginners and klutzes. And we are chief of the klutzes. Nevertheless, when we show up, we give it our all, knowing that it might not be enough to actually win. Some of our competition doesn't belong in that division. These are guys that live for slow pitch. They are good, and they're using our league to practice and get better. That's OK. But it would be nice if those who signed up showed up. Last Thursday, my heart swelled with pride for my team. It was a torrential downpour prior to the game. Mrs. T. thought I was nuts for leaving the house. But when I got to the diamond, the team was there. We had ten guys and could of played. We even had a strategy to beat these guys! But that coward umpire called the game. Still, I was proud of the guys that sacrificed and showed up to play.

Many years ago I spent some time in the bull riding ring as a bullfighter. That's the guy you know as the rodeo clown. We might dress like clowns and wear makeup like clowns, but it's serious business. When a bullrider hits the ground, his life is in our hands. There's no time for jokes or games when you're steering an angry bull away from someone he'd like to stomp on. During my training period, a wise, experienced bullfighter told me "There's lots of people want to dress up and tell jokes and have people applaud for them. But when they feel half a ton of angry pot roast blowing hot snot down their shorts, lots of 'em decide they'd rather sit in the stands."

I love the imagery that old cowboy invoked. Half a ton of angry pot roast, blowing hot snot down your shorts. Life is sometimes like that. It's all you can do to make it to the fence and jump for your life. But the important thing is that you showed up, and you came to give it your all.

In my high school days I had the opportunity to work in the training room of the Edmonton Eskimos. I was a gofer. But I had a "Staff" shirt. I wore that thing until it was in shreds. Today, anyone can go buy professional sports clothing. T-shirts, golf shirts, dress shirts. Anyone can dress the part. But buying the shirt doesn't make you part of the team.

Our company is full of people that have the shirt, but they aren't part of the team. Know what I mean? They don't show up willing to give 100% every day. Some of them get offended if you push them to give 75%. There are some people that allegedly start work at 7:30 AM. But I usually go past those people at 7:35 when they are on their way out for their first smoke break of the day. And they saunter back in at 8 AM with the regular starters, then brag about how much work they've already done.

It's a gross failure of managers to allow that type of attitude in the work place. If you want the shirt, you need to be prepared to bear some of the scars from the fight. You need to show that you have some of the hot snot on the back of your shorts.

The CBC Shows Some Love For Fidel

I can't believe I'm writing this, but the CBC has announced that they are going to delay showing the documentary "The Climb". The documentary tells the story of the first successful Canadian assault on Mount Everest.

Now what earth shaking event could cause the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a broadcaster financed by Canadian tax dollars, to postpone the showing of a major Canadian success story? Hockey Night in Canada? The Canadian Ladies Curling finals? Jaime Sale beating up the French judge from the Salt Lake City Olympics?

No, I could understand any of those. I could even understand if they chose to run some show about the road conditions in Nunavut. But the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has decided to preempt a Canadian story in favor of... get this.. a documentary about Fidel Castro.

You know the Cuban guy that just won't die? A Canadian story about a Canadian expedition scheduled to be shown on a Canadian taxpayer funded TV network has been bounced in favor of a story about Dictator For Life Fidel Castro, from the world power Cuba. You know, there's a reason why Canadians say the "C" in "CBC" stands for "Communist". I'm sure the CBC will be gushing over the success of Dear Leader and the wonders he has done with the quality of life in Cuba. That's a little sarcasm on my part. The International Living Quality of Life Index puts Cuba on par with Madagascar and Zambia, 108th put of 195 countries.

Anyway, the comrades at CBC have rescheduled The Climb for Thursday, March 27th on CBC-TV and Saturday, March 29th on CBC Newsworld. This link will take you to the CBC page. This link takes you to another Everest page that covers the schedule change.

Of course, if the Moose Jaw School Board announces they are going to reduce transfat in school lunches, CBC might choose to cover that instead.

Leadership Under Fire

Reaching the top of Mount Everest starts with a push through the most dangerous part of the mountain, the Khumbu Icefall. The glacier moves an average of 3 or 4 feet per day, but averages are misleading. It can move a few inches one day, and many feet the next. And it can move suddenly without warning, causing towering seracs to collapse and crevasses to gape open. Ladders and ropes placed one day may be found bent or torn the next because of the movement of the icefall.

It’s difficult to determine the total number of deaths on Everest. From 1980 to 2002, the American Alpine Club reports that 129 climbers have died on Everest. The web site mnteverest.net refers to the Khumbu Icefall as the most dangerous area with 19 deaths.

On August 31, 1982, the Canadians rose at 2 AM to continue their push through the Icefall to Camp I. While laboring in the dark, a mile long portion of snow and ice breaks free of the South wall and bears down on the Icefall. A tail of the avalanche strikes the climbers, burying some and knocking others free from their ropes. In the end, 3 Sherpas are dead. Only the body of Sherpa Pasang Soma is found.

Team Leader Bill March, who has a deep love and respect for the Sherpa community, accompanies the body of Pasang Soma back to Lobuche. There, he participates in the mourning as the body is cremated. Then, as he prepares to return to Base Camp, a Sherpa arrives to tell March that another member of his expedition has been killed. The team had decided to repair the route while March was away. Working on a collapsed ladder, the Icefall once again shuddered and shifted. Cameraman Blair Griffiths was pinned by a falling serac and killed instantly.

In five days, four lives are lost. The team is torn apart. It appears that the mountain is going to defeat them before they are even to Camp I. Some think the expedition should be cancelled. Others think there is too much invested to stop and the team should proceed. The possibility of death had been discussed before the team arrived in Kathmandu, and March had said that they would continue even if there was an accident. Now, in the face of actual death, some of the team members were reconsidering the cost. Most had families and responsibility back in Canada. For others, this might be the last opportunity they would have to climb Everest.

March knew that the dissention would be devastating to the team. The constant bickering and in-fighting would destroy the morale of the team, and cast a negative pall on those who wanted to continue. So March made a democratic but masterful leadership decision. Each man was allowed to make the choice for themselves whether they would continue or drop out. But those who chose to drop out must leave Base Camp immediately.

I thought this was a stroke of genius and masterful leadership on March’s part. He didn’t demand anyone stay. He didn’t even beg some to stay. Every man could make up his own mind. And when the decision was made, those who were going to go had to leave immediately. No hanging around to chat with other team members and try to talk others out of it. No sitting around casting negative vibes over the rest of the team. And on the other hand, no hard feelings toward those who were leaving. But the decision was made, so carry it out right now.

In the final count, eight stay and six leave. All the Sherpas stay with the climbing team. I won’t dwell on the details of the climb. Laurie Skreslit would go on to become the first Canadian to reach the summit of Everest. The example I wanted to share with you here was March’s leadership under such stress. The death of four people. The bad press resulting from those deaths. The change of attitude of some of the team. These are extreme examples of situations managers face regularly. Perhaps not death, but think of situation where the corporate earth trembles and shifts under your feet. In the current economy, layoffs and plant shutdowns are an everyday reality. The stress of dealing with life altering situations is as great as the stress Bill March faced. What lessons does March teach us?

First, I believe that one of the greatest attribute of a leader is compassion. Perhaps you call it something else – empathy, charity, even love. Whatever you call it, it is the trait that allows you to feel the emotions of another, and to enter into their joy and their sorrow. March had a deep love for the Sherpas, and he felt the pain of the loss of the three Sherpas as much as their family. And he recognized the emotions of those who wanted to leave the expedition. It wasn’t what he was going to do, but he didn’t criticize those how had a different perception of risk than he had.

Second, March showed the ability to make hard decisions. It would have been easy to have those who didn’t want to continue just hang around Base Camp. Maybe they could help with communications or something. But I’ve seen what happens in cases like this. Those that don’t agree with the rest of the group spend their time undermining the efforts of the rest of the team. They are like a cancer. They start small, almost unnoticeable, but soon they grow and suck the life out of the rest of the group. The best way to deal with cancer like this is to cut it out. When March cleared the camp of those who didn’t want to proceed, he was left with a unified group who were prepared to attack a common goal.

And finally, leaders are able to separate emotions from the mission at hand. It would have been understandable if March allowed the deaths of his climbing companions to cancel the climb. But he recognized the greater goal. He recognized his responsibilities to others on the team. Separating emotions from action is perhaps the most difficult thing to do. But emotions can cloud thinking to a point where our actions become a threat to others. March made his decisions based on facts, and the end result was a successful summit.

You can read a full account of the adventure on John Amatt’s home page. Amatt, an experienced climber in his own right, was the business manager for the expedition. He had the unenviable task of dealing with media and sponsors following the tragedy on the Icefall. He now shares his experiences by consulting with businesses on topics of change management, motivation and teamwork. He is also one of the founders of the Banff Mountain Film Festival held in the beautiful Canadian Rocky Mountains at the Banff Center.

And the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has completed a documentary of the expedition. Laurie Skreslit and Pat Morrow return to Everest to revisit the events that led to Skreslit being the first Canadian to summit Everest. Morrow survived the first avalanche in the Khumbu Icefall. From a promo for the documentary:

The Climb traces the build-up to the 1982 Canadian climb of Everest, tracks the drama of the journey up the mountain, and follows Skreslet and Morrow as they piece together their recollections during an emotional trip back to Nepal and Everest's storied base camp.

The film delivers the immediacy of the events as they unfolded on the mountain through the use of unique archival footage shot in 1982, while gripping the audiences with a present-day narrative of those still haunted by those tragic and triumphant days as they re-visit Base Camp together for the first time since The Climb.

The documentary is scheduled to be shown on CBC Newsworld on February 28^th. I doubt that’s a very popular channel in the US, but as they say, check local listings. Canadians, get out the popcorn and gather around the telly for a great story.

Having The Right Leader at the Right Time

The task of putting together a successful team of high ego athletes is one of the great leadership challenges there is. Mountain climbing is no different. The egos of climbers are huge, and the opportunities for failure great. At least with a baseball or football team, someone else is responsible for the recruiting and cash management. In mountain climbing, the team leader usually has the responsibility for all those things. A misstep in football might mean a lost game, or even a championship. A misstep in climbing can mean death.

The Canadian Expedition started, as many great ventures, on the back of a napkin in a bar. Canmore-based climber Roger Marshall was sitting around a table with a few of his climbing buddies when the topic of climbing Everest came up. A few beverages and a couple of cocktail napkins later, a plan was in motion to have the first Canadian team climb Everest.

Marshall’s plan was simple, as napkin-based planning systems often are. A small team of climbers would use the South Col route for a fast ascent of Everest. The South Col was the best choice because it was the most common route and had the best chance for success. A small team would keep costs low.

Just a few months after the initial tavern planning meeting, “Project Creep” had taken hold. Others in the climbing community wanted to be part of this adventure. The team had grown, and some wanted to try a more challenging route. Roger Marshall had lost control of the original small scale assault team, and was replaced as leader by Greg Kinnear.

Kinnear brought organization to the group. He hired a skilled climber, John Amatt, as business manager. Amatt was able to secure a major sponsorship from Air Canada, and organized the logistical and fund raising challenges that a large scale project required. The team worked on designing and stockpiling specialized equipment. Training climbs were scheduled for various other mountain peaks around the world.

But relations were being strained in the group. Marshall’s friends and Kinnear’s friends were frequently at odds. A third group tried to remain neutral, but was affected by the hubris of the other groups. Kinnear was diagnosed with an eye ailment that would be dangerous for him at high altitude. It became apparent that Kinnear could not lead the group on its mission. The group took a vote, and Bill March was elected group leader. March immediately appointed Lloyd Gallagher as his second. A quiet but firm man, the group had recognized that March had the abilities to lead the team to success.

So before getting to the mountain, the team is already on its third leader. What lesson does that have for us? First, we should always remember that the leader that got us started may not be the leader that helps us finish. Unlike your high school prom, organizations shouldn’t concentrate on making sure that they go home with the one that brought them.

Different leaders bring different skills to the table. Marshall brought an enthusiasm and zeal to the goal of climbing Everest, but wasn’t the best organizer. Kinnear was an organizational guru. But when it became apparent he wouldn’t be able to physically make the climb, another leader needed to be chosen. Bill March was an experienced climber who had the respect of his teammates. Different leaders who brought different skills at different times to the mission. And each was needed in their time and place, but there was no fear to replace the leader when new leadership was needed.

Second, this has implications for our own careers. Not only should organizations be prepared to replace leadership when needed, but individuals need to be prepared to move on when their time is up. This is perhaps the greatest challenge – recognizing that our time has passed and we need to toss the torch to new hands. It shouldn’t be viewed as failure. As this team recognized, there are different skills required for different parts of any venture. To keep an individual in a leadership position when they lack the necessary skills places the entire team at risk.

Next week – death on the mountain threatens to tear the team apart, and Bill March shows amazing leadership skills dealing with the events.