So are the so-called fat cats worth it? What justifies such an enormous difference in salary and bonuses in relation to other senior level colleagues and the rest of the employed workforce?

It’s no exaggeration that the average employee could competently accomplish 95% of the duties a typical CEO undertakes on a day-to-day basis. The difference is in the 5%.

It simply boils down to the ability to make difficult decisions, not just the every day decisions that most of us make (although many people shy away from making the simplest decisions, unaware that not making a decision is a decision in itself), the 5% is represented by the kind of decisions that make or break not just the leader, but also the company and everyone connected with it.

These are the tough calls, and anyone who thinks that the risk doesn’t justify the reward has never made a tough call or understood the level of risk a leader at this level often has to take. It’s the kind of decision that sucks the life right out of you. Having your hard earned career and reputation put on the line is one thing, having the livelihood of hundreds or possibly thousands of people with families and homes to support is quite another. It’s easy to forget that senior leaders are human too.

It’s in having the courage to take personal responsibility for making the tough decisions that the fat cats justify getting their cream.

Recently, I returned to John’s ‘Developing the Leader Within You’, and one of it’s messages hit me like a train. It was a message relating to vision, perception, thinking and potential.

Casting vision ignites potential. Too many people fail to create a compelling vision for what they aspire to in their lives, and what can’t be seen with the mind can’t be created in life. What you see is what you can be, and what you see is what you get.

I’ve worked with many business leaders who cast vision for their business and never for themselves. This is a major error. Without a personal vision of success, an individual is nothing more than a wondering generality in life.

Having a career is one thing, shaping one on your own terms is another. Lacking vision, a person is a like a ship adrift at sea without destination, it’s the tide that governs the path. Despite the biblical warning of ‘where there is no vision the people perish’ many people are still choosing to live life this way.

Then there’s perception. The way a person chooses to see things has a massive impact on their success in life. Konrad Adenauer once said ‘we all live under the same sky, but we don’t all have the same horizon’.

Henry Ford was told repetitively by his most senior engineers that his idea to create an eight-cylinder automotive engine was ‘impossible’. Over a two year period he continually sent them away to ‘make it so’, only for them to return with the same message. He refused to accept their beliefs, and eventually they overcame the obstacles and ‘made it so’. Ford and his engineers lived under the same sky yet had very different horizons.

What you see is what you get. What are your horizons? Where’s your thinking? This brings us to responsibility and accountability. Personal ownership is not a pill that is easily swallowed for some.

In Bobb Biehl’s book ‘Increasing Your Leadership Confidence’ he discusses the key differentiator between the mental strategies of a ‘loser’ and ‘winner’. The latter focuses on winning big, not just on how to win. Whilst a loser doesn’t intend to lose, their thinking is focused on ‘just getting by’, and that’s the fundamental difference between the two.

This is the message that hit me between the eyes. The most potent influence on the quality of our thinking is our environment. When surrounded by the ‘doom and gloom’ merchants spinning their negative toxicity day in day out, it’s easy to fall into the ‘just getting by’ attitude. It’s a message that has me questioning where my thinking is.

When we change the way we look at things the things we look at change. Check in with yourself today. Where is your thinking?

In every walk of life there exists individuals who possess very obvious natural abilities yet they fail to bring those gifts to bear upon results. ABILITY and CAPABILITY are not the same. Capability is a result of ability that has been enabled by improved self-awareness. It’s just not possible to influence that which we’re not aware of.

The window through which the light of our potential shines is our attitude, and yet it’s what influences our attitude that addresses the question. More specifically, it’s what shapes our thoughts and feelings at any given time that makes the difference to our personal and professional performance.

Where awareness is lacking, our beliefs, the myriad of ideas that originated with other people and sources, the concepts that have been subliminally impregnated in the mind over many years, subtly influence the quality of our thoughts and emotions. We’re rarely conscious to this process, yet we live it’s consequences. Then there’s the unconscious acceptance of the opinions of external sources such as friends, colleagues, family and the media that influences our thinking with their way of thinking.

Last but certainly not least is the influence of leadership itself. Returning to the English football team, I doubt whether any of the players, who enjoy somewhat of a celebrity status, lacked belief in their ability to perform at the highest level, but they clearly lacked belief in something. That is a leadership issue.

Whether it was a lack of belief in the system and tactics employed on the pitch, or the consequences of poor communication between a leader who struggles with the English language and the world-class players at his disposal, at some level there was a lack of belief that infested the group psyche of the English camp. It intoxicated individual mindsets, nullifying the talent, skills and abilities that have brought these players to the world stage.

Sadly, whatever the field, achievement is not accomplished through reputation alone. Talent is never enough.

It’s fundamentally due to a perception problem. There’s a world of difference between training employees and developing them. The former can be sacrificed in the short term to enable suitable recovery without significant implications on performance, the latter cannot. Why? Because training provides competence, not sustainable improvements in performance. If staff are already competent in role, it’s personal development that inspires them to greater performance by drawing potential into performance, not more training.

Business performance is autobiographical, when employees are growing personally they’re growing professionally, and it ALWAYS correlates to growth in top and bottom line performance. This is nothing new, yet sadly, in a business world dominated at senior levels by economists and accountants, when it comes to leveraging the most expandable asset in the business, common sense is rarely common practice.

Training is strategically essential, however, in most cases, it’s misused against it’s purpose. Competence and performance are two very different aspects of success. Established and experienced employees can operate successfully without further training, they already know how to do the job, it’s how well they are doing it that is the key differentiator between surviving and thriving.

There needs to be a more intelligent approach to cost reduction exercises in the business community, specifically around organizational development, if leaders are to protect and grow their business in the unique challenges of the creative economy. Culling the entire employee development and education budget has dire consequences, with any short-term gain offset by the inevitable medium to long term pain.

Of course, the impact of unintelligent cost reduction measures are rarely measured, least of all by the perpetrators of such decisions, hence what feeds the naive and ignorant view that people development is an non-essential expense that can be turned off and on depending on the prevailing market conditions. It’s poor, reactive business leadership that seriously risks the sustainability of the business by liquidating its primary asset.

Unlocking the untapped potential of employees is not a “nice to have” when times are good, it’s a critical and permanent factor in business success that becomes even more imperative in difficult market conditions. Suspend training initiatives that provide in-role skills and competence if necessary during difficult trading periods, but never suspend the character development of employees.

I found the general election campaign and it’s eventual outcome fascinating, especially from the perspective of observing leadership. The age of celebrity inevitably dawned with the live TV leadership debates gripping millions of apathetic non-voters, many seduced by, as it initially appeared in the opinion polls, more by personality than substance.

That seduction failed to materialise on polling day. For the more studious of political voters it became a matter of policy, for others it was tactical, and for many it was less about choice and more about tradition. In modern leadership, charisma and charm are powerful character traits, however, they only carry you so far.

The outcome of a coalition government has been billed as a new dawning for British politics, and, should the leaders concerned have the integrity and influence to navigate the inevitable dissent and opposition from within their party ranks, a new order could emerge. It could also represent change of a much broader magnitude, the birthing of a new world order that transforms the way we lead our global community.

In business, the intricate and increasingly matrixed collaboration between leader and follower, distributor and supplier, affiliate and partner, consumer and enterprise has never been so imperative for success in the fast-paced and complex economy of today. Now the heads of the political duality that is the British Government have a unique opportunity to lead by example, to ‘become the change they seek in the world’, by demonstrating what setting aside personal differences for the greater good can achieve for both their country and, if they get it right, the rest of the world.

It may be naïve, wildly unrealistic and ridiculously idealistic, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. Given the increasing challenges of a world torn between economic fragility, poverty, ideology and the futility of extremism, demonstrable collaboration in times of adversity on a global stage from our prominent and visible world leaders could just become the catalyst that helps overcome the ignorance that remains the source of our global problems. It may take a decade, it may take a century or longer, whatever it takes, let us pray that it begins.

I don’t think he’s alone in that, it’s an admirable and essential aspect of survival in todays service based economy. The problem is, it’s misinformed. The client experience isn’t king, the employee experience is, because the client experience will always reflect the employee experience.

It still astonishes me when I witness organizations who make little or no investment in the employee experience, and still expect those employees to deliver best in class service to their clients.

The issue goes much deeper than that. If we’re going to “unpeel the layers” and move from the effects of the client experience to the cause, we need to look at what creates the employee experience, and that responsibility rests firmly on the shoulders of the people employed in leadership positions.

The problem for most companies today is that they are so poorly equipped in leadership ability. They might have employees in positions of leadership, that doesn’t necessarily qualify them as leaders. I have found, in my two decades of business experience, that most of these employees are skilled in management not leadership, and there’s a huge different between the two in both practice and performance.

Let me put a simple analogy to you in an attempt to emphasise the point. You wouldn’t entertain hiring a person to improve the performance of your car who has little or no understanding of a car engine, would you? And you certainly wouldn’t hire someone who has never improved the performance of their own car.

Yet most companies employ people in leadership positions who have no understanding of the mind or how to influence it and have never engaged in any kind of self-development process. If you can’t improve yourself, then how on Earth can you expect to do it for someone else?

The evidence of how detrimental this is to the top and bottom line is plentiful for those awake enough to find it. The performance barometer for EVERY business, regardless of size, lies in its leadership ability.

Just as it is with individual growth, a business has to be prepared to look a little closer to home if it’s to sustainably improve results. In these unprecedented commercial times, the need to evolve beyond conventional approaches to leadership development and work at the cause of performance not the effects of it is long overdue. It’s time to start developing the character not the toolkit.

A company can make all of the platitudes it likes about the client experience, if the employee experience is dull, shaped by poorly equipped managers with an unhealthy exuberance to measure performance rather than improve it, the writing will be on the wall when it comes to results.

Be willing to ask some intelligent questions of your people. Get curious and take a look under the hood of your business. You might be surprised by what you find, and the first step to improving performance is becoming aware of what is currently inhibiting it.

That’s right, I’m recommending you stop training your employees if you’re intention is to improve results and gain a sensible return on investment.

Sounds ridiculous does it? Actually, it isn’t when you examine the evidence. Every week there’s a business leader somewhere bemoaning the poor return on investment from training employees. A short term burst in performance may sometime occur however, beyond a few weeks, people continue to operate as they’ve always done.

In 2008, research conducted in the United States calculated the loss of knowledge from a typical training programme to be eighty-three percent in the immediate four weeks that followed. Ouch. Perhaps that’s why so many companies avoid measuring the actual impact of training on performance.

The problem isn’t with training, it’s about the perception of it’s capabilities. We have a misinformed and misaligned perspective of what training is actually for and what it can achieve.

Training is strategically imperative, however, it isn’t effective in sustainably improving performance because it’s purpose is to provide competence, not performance. You train talent to be competent, you coach and develop the person for performance.

What’s created this flaw in our thinking? It’s because our business training methodologies and adult educational systems are based on the same learning principles as the traditional education system, and it’s flawed.

For a start, the premise that knowledge is a prerequisite for improved performance is nothing short of a nonsense. The world of academia is built upon rewarding people for what they know, not what they do, the world outside of academia rewards people for what they do, not what they know. That creates a significant misalignment that limits human potential.

Most people know how to do a better job, the problem is, they’re not doing it, and you can pour in as much information as you like, the performance isn’t going to change. To change people at a behavioral level, you have coach and develop the person.

Training for competence in product, process, systems, marketplace, competitive landscape and technique is important, however, all of that knowledge isn’t going to deliver a lasting improvement in results.

Training does it’s job and does it well, however, any company intending to sustainably improve performance must maximise on the inherent potential of its’ talent, and that requires a very different approach to the one currently taken by the vast majority of organizations.

It’s a cold January morning in 2007. In a Washington DC Metro Station, a man with violin begins to play six Bach pieces for approximately forty-five minutes. During this time two thousand people passed through the station,most of them commuting to work.

After three minutes, a middle-aged man noticed that there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds, and then hurried along to meet his schedule. About four minutes later the violinist received his first dollar. A woman threw money in the hat and, without stopping,continued to walk.

After six minutes a young man leaned against the wall to listen, and then, looking at his watch, darted off toward the platforms. At ten minutes a three-year old boy stopped but his mother moved him along hurriedly. The child stopped again to look at the violinist, but again his mother tugged at him, this time even harder so the child continued to walk, turning his head the whole time. This action was repeated by several other children, and EVERY parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.

During the forty-five minutes, the musician played continuously. Only six people stopped and listened for a short while. About twenty gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.

After one hour, he finished playing and silence ensued. Nobody noticed, noone applauded. There was no recognition at all.

The violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before, Joshua Bell played to a full-house in a Boston theater where the average ticket price to listen tohim play the same pieces was $100.

Joshua Bell played incognito in the DC Metro Station in partnership with the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people’s priorities.

The experiment raises many questions, here are only a few:

In a common environment, at an inconvenient hour, do we perceive the beauty that surrounds us?

How limited is our conscious awareness as we speed through our lives in the endless of pursuit of doing for doings’ sake?

What is inherent within children that we appear to disconnect from as adults?

Are we able to recognize talent in an unexpected context, and what talents do we consequently miss in ourselves and others?

If we don’t have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made, what else are we failing to notice as we rush through our lives?

We have a perception problem. Knowledge is not a prerequisite for success. Some of the most knowledgeable people on the planet are unhappy, unhealthy, financially destitute and struggle to have meaningful connections with other people.

Success is a consequence of wisdom, and wisdom is knowledge applied through experience. And even that isn’t the full story, because we don’t really learn from our experiences, if we did, we wouldn’t keep on doing the things that no longer serve us in relation to our expansion and success. We learn from evaluated experience. So our true learning and the foundation for greater success in life comes from knowledge applied through an evaluated experience, the outcome of which is wisdom.

Interestingly, we rarely choose to learn from success either. It often takes failure for our eyes to open (although many people fail to learn from failure too). I’ve seen many leaders in business carry out a detailed post mortem on a failed contract opportunity, which is a very useful exercise, yet rarely have I seen them do the same on a successful one. If you aren’t willing to also learn from your successes then how on Earth can you expect to replicate them in the future?

Once again, it’s a perception problem, and it’s not the only one. Failure has become a dirty word for many people, yet failure is a necessary component of success. You need to experience what’s not right in order to understand what is.

That’s why the journey of successful entrepreneurs is littered with failures, some of them catastrophic by many people’s standards. And yet what differentiated those successful few was that they understood the process, dusted themselves down, assessed where it went wrong, adjusted their though processes and behaviors, and got on with it. They understood that success is not a consequence of what you have but who you are, the purpose of failure is to help you grow in order to become the person worthy of the success you intend for your life. It’s a truth that applies to every aspect of life, from boardroom negotiations to personal relationships.

Failure is the most potent form of learning there is. Sadly, most people attempt to avoid it by not making decisions, scared of the risk. Growth cannot occur in the absence of risk. Ironically, by avoiding failure, they’re already experiencing it, they’re just not aware of the fact and consequently, not learning in the process. Failure is not in the falling down; it’s in the staying down. That is why I say in the interest of your success, I hope you fail.

Every individual has been gifted with unique abilities in which to draw that unlimited potential into performance. Sadly, so very few of us choose to do so. It’s been said that many people possess a hundred acres of possibilities but keep only one acre under cultivation. Why? The primary reason is most people are unwilling to take what they perceive to be risks.

Taking risks is essential for success. It provides the birthing process for unexpressed potential. Success is a consequence of growth and growth is a consequence of risk. All growth occurs from the willingness to take risks, and yet, for most people, risk is something that is simply unpalatable.

It’s not as if I’m referring to the kind of risk that puts everything on the line (and that’s what the most highly successful people are willing to do by the way). I’m referring to how many people consider it a risk to do anything outside of the routine of mediocrity that is often referred to as a “comfort zone”, living out the same old daily/weekly/monthly activities, rarely, if ever, willing to even contemplate doing anything outside of that routine in order to help them achieve more in their personal and professional lives.

It’s the default setting of the masses, and there is nothing more limiting and detrimental to success in life.

It’s no exaggeration that most people tip-toe their way through life hoping to make it safely to death. In a recent study, fifty people over the age of ninety-five where asked “if you could live your life over again, what would you do differently?” The most common answer was “if I had the chance to do it all again, I would risk more”.

Risk and growth are the fast lanes on the highway leading to success. What evidence exists right now in your personal and professional life that indicates you are willing to take risks?