Drucker’s Insights On Leadership

The Effective Leader

Bob Stinson RLS Focused Solutions

leader In two previous articles, we discussed results-based leadership and some of the possible methods of making that happen. I want to share with you some of the thoughts written by the late Peter F. Drucker in an article entitled What Makes an Effective Executive published in the June 2004 issue of Harvard Business Review. In this article, he provides excellent insights into the development of your leadership style. His analysis is broken down into three major categories with steps within each. They include:

  • Get the knowledge you need
    • What needs to be done?
    • What is the right thing to do?
    • Convert the knowledge into action
      • Develop an Action Plan
      • Take Responsibility for Decisions
      • Take Responsibility for Communicating
      • Focus on Opportunities, Not Problems
      • Ensure Company-wide Accountability
        • Run Productive Meetings
        • Think and say “WE” not “I”

What Needs to Be Done?

Yes, what needs to be done, not what you need to do. Often a leader enters into a new position with a preconceived idea of what he wants to get done and, upon arrival, finds that there are issues of greater importance. This is true in business, charitable organizations and government. When George H. Bush ran for President in 1988, his most remembered campaign promise was, “read my lips, no new taxes”. But when he was elected and his understanding of the issues involved, he had to ask for an increase in taxes. The pundits ridiculed him for breaking a campaign promise, but in fact he showed great leadership in addressing the issue.

As a result of this knowledge gathering exercise, not just one but many issues will be identified. Trying to address them all at the same time will lead to a lack of focus and a diluted effort. The question becomes, “What needs to be done right now?” Prioritization of issues to be addressed must occur to effectively make progress.

What is the Right Thing to Do?

What is the right thing to do for the enterprise? Not, what is the right thing to do for me, the owners, the stockholders, the employees, or the executives?  Agonizing over the shareholders should become secondary.

The great majority of businesses in our county are family owned. Often family considerations need to be included in decision making. When it comes to promotions or the filling of a vacant position, a family member should not be considered unless they are the best qualified. Family members should join the firm at an entry level position and rise through the ranks based upon their abilities not their relationships.

Developing an Action Plan

The first stage of converting the acquired knowledge into action is the development of an Action Plan. That plan should include a step-by-step list of actions items to be completed, the reposnsibilty of those who must complete each item and a deadline for the completion of each action. The amount of time required to complete the overall plan may be 6 months, 12 months or longer. It is all dependent on the complexity of the plan.

An action plan is the basis for time management for those involved. Since the organization has focused on a priority issue to be achieved, the manager who is responsible for completing an action item should dedicate the required time to meet the deadline. The basis of any time management exercise is to establish a priority on the use of time during the day.

An action plan is a statement of intention, not commitment. Each plan needs to be reviewed on a regular basis and changes made as appropriate. It is not a strait jacket. Drucker points out, “Napoleon allegedly said that no successful battle ever followed its plan.”

Take Responsibility for Decisions

A leader must hold those who are responsible for completing action steps accountable, while also helping them overcome obstacles. There needs to be the acknowledgment of the completion of a step as a job well done. There also needs to be negative consequences for individuals who are not regularly completing tasks. Progress against the action plan needs to be the subject of regular meetings where everyone reports tasks completed and issues encountered.

Communication to all those directly affected by the plan is a key element. They must understand how it affects them personally and how it effects the things they do. Communication to those who are not directly affected is also needed to apprise them of the changing environment.

Focus on Opportunities, Not Problems.

That is not to say that you sweep problems under the rug. They need to be taken care of, but their solution returns the organization to the status quo. Opportunities produce results which help the firm grow and prosper.

Change needs to be considered an opportunity, not a threat. Look for the gap between what is and what could be. Look for unexpected failures which might be a learning experience, unveiling a new opportunity. Look for innovative processes, products and services both within your industry and in another industry. Look for demographic changes which show the way to the need for specialized services or products. Don’t be threatened by technological change, embrace it.

Think and say “We” not “I”

If you want to take all the credit for success, you may find you are on your own. In 1993, theleader computer giant was in deep trouble and on the verge of going out of business. Computer technology had changed drastically and IBM needed to go through a revolutionary strategic and cultural change. The Board brought in a new CEO, Louis Gerstner Jr, who had been CEO at RJR Nabisco, and had little knowledge of computer technology. His accounting of the turnaround at IBM is chronicled in his book, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance. Unlike many industry leaders who tell how they developed their organizations and take the credit, Mr. Gerstner dedicates the book to the team who made it happen and praises them for their efforts. The book is worth reading.

RLS Focused Solutions is a firm dedicated to the development of individual and organizational leaders. Through our many programs we first seek knowledge, then development plans, and finally work with our partners on implementation. Lets start a conversation today. Email bob@plangoals.com or call (910) 55-1286.

Results in Leadership

Getting Leadership ResultsBob & Linda Stinson

In our previous article, Leadership, Back to Basics, the difference between the Characteristic Model of Leadership and the Results Based Model was explored. It was concluded that the Results Based Model provided any individual the best means of performing their leadership role, because it concentrated on the achievement of goals versus the difficult modification of an individual’s personality. The next question is that after this conclusion, how to motivate the team or followers to achieve those desired results.

Daniel Coleman has authored an article entitled Leadership That Gets Results in the March 2000 issue of the Harvard Business Review. He presents the results of a study done by the consulting firm of Hay/McBar which used the data from 3,871 executives to show there are distinct leadership styles. These styles spring from different components of emotional intelligence. (See our previous article on Leadership and Emotional intelligence). It needs to be remembered that each leadership is situational and the styles discussed may work in one situation but not another. These styles are defined as:

  • Coercive
  • Authoritative
  • Affiliate
  • Democratic
  • Pacesetting
  • Coaching.
  • Coercive Leadership

A new manager, with the reputation of a turnaround artist, comes on the scene at a company which is not meeting the expectations of its board of directors. The manager, as expected, begins to reduce staff, sell off lackluster businesses and makes tough decisions. Decision making is top down, with other points of view discouraged and even punished.

Although this style may produce short-term results, in the long run it causes great damage. It kills new ideas and minimizes the flexibility necessary to prosper in an ever changing environment. Managers lose their sense of ownership and are reluctant to pursue the organization’s mission. There is no doubt that this style has its time and place, but there is a point where the rebuilding of the management team is needed. Knowing when that transition point occurs is critical.

Authoritative Leadership

The other day I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. His guest for the evening was leadershipHoward Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, who was explaining their new program to help finance college education for their employees. Schultz stated that at Starbucks they understand that if they treated their employees well, then the employees would treat their customers well. That would produce a great customer experience and that was at the core of their business success. Jon Stewart jokes that he thought that coffee was the core of the business and that illustrates the concept of the authoritative leadership style.

Authoritative leaders bring a clear vision and vibrant enthusiasm to their organizations. That vision and enthusiasm is contagious and permeates everyone in the organization including the store managers and the employees. The coffee has to be good, but the customer has to have a great experience. This is one of the most effective leadership styles, but requires the type of true insight only available from those who have a deep understanding of the keys to business success. Platitudes such as “we are a world class organization” are often seen in the vision statement of organization, but are just that, platitudes, which do not allow others to understand the organization’s vision for success.

Affilliative Leadership

One might observe that the authoritative leadership style of Howard Schultz described above is also affilliative. Let look at the difference. The authoritative style is about vision. The affilliative style is about people. The coercive style demands, “Do what I say,” and the authoritative urges, “Come with me”. The affilliative leader says, “People come first.”

The affilliative leader strives to keep people happy and builds strong emotional bonds. This builds strong loyalty. This builds upon strong communication, where ideas and inspirations are shared. The organization has great flexibility.

Although this approach sounds impressive, it does have its downsides. First, there is always a great diversity in the personality of the follower, causing a complex issue in building those emotional bonds. What builds loyalty in one person may not do the same in others. This style may also lead to mediocre perseverance by some. This approach would not be used on its own but only in combination with others.

Democratic Leadership

resultsThis style is exactly what its title says; the process is all about a democratic system where many are involved. It involves a series of meetings where the subject is discussed, plans are made and goals are set. It is a time-consuming process and cannot be one used in a crisis situation. It is often used when the leader does not have knowledge needed to set goals and plans, therefore the knowledge must come from the followers. There is always a great degree of buy-1n by those involved with this approach. It should be avoided when the employees are not competent or informed to offer sound advice.

Pacesetting Leadership

This style is similar to the coercive style but even more demanding. It needs to be used only sparingly. The leader sets extremely high performance standards and exemplifies them himself. He quickly pinpoints those who don’t measure up to those standards and demands more from them. If they don’t rise to the occasion they are quickly replaced. Employees feel overwhelmed and feel the pacesetter doesn’t trust them.

An engineering department made it a practice to promote the best engineer to the position of supervisor. It was clearly understood that the reason for his promotion was his design proficiency. During the first meeting with the new supervisor, the design engineers would present their initial concepts on a design process. The supervisor because of his higher expertise and standards would then exert his new authority to override the concepts presented. This eventually led to creating a group of demoralized designers and a fall-off in productivity. In most cases, the new supervisor had to be demoted.

Coaching Leadership

This leadership style can be very effective in helping people overcome their weaknesses and build new competencies. It works very well when employees are already aware of their weaknesses and are up to improvements. It works poorly when they are resistant to learning and changing their ways. Because of the constant communication and time involved,it is the least popular style of leadership.

Leadership is situational; therefore one leadership style doesn’t work every time. Good leaders can employ multiple approaches or approaches in combination. Crisis situations may require the coercive style to start, but a later change to the authoritative as conditions improve. A democratic style may be best used when the change that is necessary requires agreement of those involved and adequate time to implement. Knowledgeable business coaches, because of their wide range of experience, can help analyze the situation and provide the guidance necessary.

Bob and Linda Stinson are partners in RLS Focused Solutions. They specialize in leadership and organizational development. visit: http://www.plangoals.com


Attempting Too Many Things at Once

by Jeff Davidson, MBA, CMC

In our current era of multi-taskers, concentration and focus are underrated. A magnifying glass held up at the correct angle to the sun will quicky burn a whole through a piece of paper. At the same time, no matter how much sun shines through your office window onto your desk, none of those long and tedious memos are going to catch on fire. The lack of combustibility has nothing to do with the way the manufacturer engineered this flat piece of glass.

Multi-tasking is occasionally helpful and seemingly satisfying but, along with the shower of information and communication overload, represents a paradoxical impediment to getting things done. Let’s see why.

Faster and Less Attentive

The term multi-tasking evolved from the computer industry, the early mainframe computers designed with parallel processes is perhaps the prime example of automated multi-tasking.

In many respects, the computer has accelerated our inattentiveness. Personal computers achieved critical mass in 1981 with the introduction of the Apple Computer designed as an alternative to the IBM PC. The affordable technology enabled common folk to engage in sequential kinds of activities and elevated our propensity to become task-switchers. Then for a host of reasons, and some so bizarre that they defy description, over the next 25 years we began to emulate our computers. We multi-tasked while they multi-tasked.

Today, with the typical office professional sending or receiving more than 200 messages a day, counting all forms of communication, and all of them coming and going at shorter intervals, a generation of career professionals are being driven virtually to distraction. A number of the messages are fleeting, the meaning often unclear, and the result a listless and confused workforce.

Against the back drop of information and communication overload, ever-advancing technology, and more choices than anyone needs or even wants, seemingly, an entire workforce generation has been taught to multi-task as if this is the way it has always been, needs to be, and always will be.

Continuous Partial Attention

Multitasking has become a norm giving rise to “continuous partial attention,” where nothing gets your true and undivided focus, and everything is homogenized to the point of carrying nearly equal weight.

We offer our attention here, there, and then somewhere else. Like a one-man band, we get our strokes from strumming the guitar, tapping our foot, and blowing on the harmonica. We equate accomplishment with flapping our wings, stirring up a lot of commotion, and making a lot of noise. We can barely tolerate stillness. For many, silence doesn’t appear to be golden, it seems more like a dark space, lacking productivity, that can yield nothing useful. Undivided attention is a term that has fallen out of popular use.

Generally, we feel guilty if we don’t multi-task! We contemplate our increasing workloads and responsibilities and how they are subject to continual shifts, and justify multi-tasking as a valid response to a world of flux.

Despite the temptation to do otherwise, focusing on the task at hand is vital to getting things done. Whether there’s a handful of tasks confronting you, or ideally only one, give all your time, attention, energy, focus, concentration, effort, and all that good stuff to the task at hand, and then turn to what’s next.

Over-employed, and Undesired

It’s likely that people have always sought to handle many things simultaneously, stretching as far back as cave dwellers. Their multi-tasking effort probably seemed crude by comparison. Someday, somewhere, someone may discover that we are hardwired to continuously attempt to economize our use of time.

Our age old “flight or fight” response to perceived stressors in the environment works well, at intermittent times. The small jolts of concentrated energy and vigilance helps us to safeguard our selves, our loved ones, and our possessions. As a species however, we are not wired to effectively handle continuous streams of two major stress hormones — adrenaline and cortisol — on a daily basis.

Bruce McEwen, Ph.D., director of the neuroendocrinology lab at Rockefeller University, observes that while we can apparently weather stresses and rapid hormonal changes in the short term, about 3 to 15 days, soon thereafter chronic stress begins to ensue. The result is a weakened immune system, aggression, anxiety and a decrease in brain functioning which results in burnout. Dangerously high levels of cortisol can result in poor sleep patterns and insulin resistance which can open the door to bad eating habits and weight gain.

More Errors, Lingering Effects

Multi-tasking seemingly enables one to achieve time-saving benefits, but does it? While some people remain relatively unscathed by multi-tasking and can get as much done in the course of the workday, most people suffer in ways they don’t even understand.

Rather than increasing their productivity, multi-tasking diminishes it. They make more mistakes. They leave too many things undone. Their quality of work is not what it could be. And the list of potential hazards of multi-tasking is beginning to grow. Are you a victim to any of the following:

* Gaps in short-term memory?

* Loss of concentration?

* Problems communicating with co-workers?

* Lapses in attentiveness?

* Stress symptoms such as shortness of breath?

When multi-tasking, sometimes your brain can go into a crash mode. This is characterized by not being able to remember what you just said or did, or what you’re going to do next! This has been termed “having a senior moment,” but it’s no joke and it doesn’t only happen to seniors.

Professor David Meyer at the University of Michigan has established a link between chronic high-stress, multi-tasking and loss of short-term memory. “There is scientific evidence that multi-tasking is extremely hard for someone to do, and sometimes impossible,” he says. Also, the time lost switching between tasks tends to increase the perceived complexity of the tasks and often results in making a person less efficient than if he had chosen to focus on one task or project at time.

Continually Kidding Ourselves

The most difficult type of multi-tasking occurs when you try to engage the same area of the brain. You run into this all the time, people who are on the phone who are also surfing the net, listening to the radio, or in earshot of someone in the next room. Whether you’re attempting to handle conflicting visual-processing tasks or conflicting auditory-processing tasks, the net result is you’re not going to handle either task as well as you would handle each individually.

Marcel Just Ph.D., co-director of Carnegie-Melon’s Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging, conducted a study in which he asked participants to listen to sentences while comparing two rotating objects. These tasks draw on different areas of the brain, yet participants’ ability to engage in visual processing, comparing the two rotating objects, dropped by 29%.

Participants’ capabilities for auditory processing, listening to the sentence, dropped by 53% when engaged in this mild multi-tasking test. Dr. Just says that while we certainly can do more than one thing at a time “we are kidding ourselves if we think we can do so without cost.”

Also, research conducted at the National Institute of Mental Health confirms that when the brain has to juggle several tasks at once or in rapid succession, it has to overcome “inhibitions” that it put in place to cease doing the task to begin with. It’s as if the brain is taking its foot off the break.

Focus and concentration will be your keys for getting things done. Multi-tasking, as it is popularly understood and practiced, is not your answer. It is expensive in terms of the level of stress induced and the rise in errors and, hence, can actually hamper productivity.

Jeff Davidson is “The Work-Life Balance Expert®” and the leading personal brand in speaking, writing, and reflecting on work-life balance issues. He’s spoken to Fortune 50 companies such as IBM, Cardinal Health Group, and Lockheed; and to American Express and Westinghouse. He wrote Simpler Living, Breathing Space, and Dial it Down–Live It Up, among 65 other books. Visit http://www.BreathingSpace.com

Three-Word Game Plans

by Jeff Davidson

Do game plans need to be long and voluminous?  On some tasks and some ventures, as few as three words might be more than enough to get started:

Assess, Adjust, Act
Ask, Accommodate, Apply
Breathe, Believe, Begin

Confront, Consider, Commence
Collaborate, Contemplate, Control
Consider, Capitalize, Continue

Digest, Deliberate, Decide
Deliberate, Decide, Do
Embrace, Evaluate, Embark

Embark, Establish, Emerge
Encounter, (Self) Educate, Execute
Focus, Fathom, Formulate

Grapple, Grasp, Go
Embark, Establish, Emerge
Improve, Innovate, Integrate

Investigate, Integrate, Initiate
Mesmerize, Motivate
Pause, Plan, Proceed
Jeff Davidson is “The Work-Life Balance Expert®” whose passion is helping organizations achieve rapid progress for their employees or members. The premier thought leader on work-life balance issues, Jeff is the author of 65 books, among them “Breathing Space,” “Dial it Down, Live it Up,” “Simpler Living,” the “60 Second Innovator,” and the “60 Second Organizer.”  Visit www.BreathingSpace.com or call 919-932-1996 for more information on Jeff’s keynote speeches and seminars, including:
* Managing the Pace with Grace®
* Achieving Work-Life Balance™
* Managing Information and Communication Overload®
Re-fuel, Re-focus, Re-formulate
Relax, Re-group, Re-start
Sponsor, Support, Succeed



A Good Termination

by Bruce Clarke, J.D.

Clarke, Bruce 2014The best job terminations resemble resignations.  The issues are clear and efforts were made to improve.  Dignity is preserved.

The truth is, most firings happen under difficult conditions.  A manager dropped the ball or the employee behaved badly.  How can a difficult firing be better?

The firing manager usually controls the “terms of the termination” and can make a difficult situation better. There is discretion on basic terms like time off payouts, future references, how an unemployment claim will be handled, and even a written release of legal claims.  There is discretion on what others are told and what the employee record reflects.  There is even discretion on the last day of work and whether the employee will stay to finish some projects.  The facts vary widely.

A much more complicated and misunderstood category of discretion is how the employee is fired.  Call it the “human treatment” option.  It is much more powerful than you might think.

The key to “human treatment” is whether the employee views the termination process itself as fair, not whether the decision was correct.  “Was my treatment on the way out the final insult in a long line of insults, or was it something quite different?  Did it recognize my humanity, my need for dignity, my need to tell others why I was fired, and my need to leave this group of work friends without a sudden and public divorce?”

The most important way a manager can make the process fair is to tell the truth.  “This is why we are firing you.  This is how the decision was made.  This is how we investigated the facts. Yes, we value the work you did for us on that, but the failures on this led to your discharge.”  This is not the time to say everything that is true, nor the time to debate, but it can often be a time to establish the basic fairness of the decision process itself.  It is also not the time to destroy the last shred of an employee’s dignity.

The most important way a fired employee can encourage “human treatment” is to be capable of handling his or her end of the bargain.  Can you as an employee de-personalize this firing?  Can you disagree or agree on a point without coming unglued?   Can you show you are ready to move on if the exit makes that possible?  Can you set out your ideas for internal communication and future references, or say goodbye to your team without making matters worse?  Can you be trusted?

Research by a Duke professor and his team found that employees who perceived the process as fair were much less likely to make claims against employers, even if they disagreed with the discharge.  Employees who saw the process itself as unfair became vindictive and made legal claims at a much higher rate.  Giving no reason for firing is not perceived as fair!  Fairness in the termination process itself may be a better predictor of future legal problems than whether the actual reasons for termination were valid or not.

You can make a difficult termination better or worse by how the exit is handled.  Your choice!

Bruce Clarke, J.D., is CEO of CAI, helping more than 1,000 NC employers maximize employee engagement and minimize employer liability. For more information, visit www.capital.org.

Coaching People to Think

Coaching People to ThinkBob & Linda Stinson

As a young co-op student with General Motors, one of my first assignments was to work in the personnel department (we now call it HumanRelations). People would come in to apply for work. We would tell them to fill out an application and we would keep it on file. One day I was standing at the counter talking to a supervisor in the department when an applicant came through the door and asked, “What are the qualifications necessary to work here”. The supervisor replied, “Just a strong back and a weak mind”

Decades ago those were the qualifications for many jobs in the manufacturing sector. But today our requirements for employees, even in the manufacturing sector, have drastically changed. Those simple repetitive job functions have been replaced by robotic or computerized devices. And when automation is uneconomical, the job has been transferred to a low-skill, low wage geographic area of the world. This trend is evident not only in manufacturing, but in all other sectors of the economy.

Employees now need to make decisions, do problem solving, and be creative. Delegation and empowerment are the keys to flatten organizational structures and increasing productivity. The need for a strong back has given way to the need for a strong mind. This drastically changes the role of a manager or supervisor from that of giving intimate direction and control of their staff, to that of encouraging them to think for themselves. This calls for leaders to become the coaches of their team members, requiring new skills and attitudes.

In increasing employee performance, some have adopted the iceberg model, which suggests that although some of behaviors are visible, most of our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings lurk below the surface.

Many employees are highly capable individuals who want to work and be smarter. They are crying for help and it is up to business leaders to learn how to ask the right questions and conduct truly engaging coaching conversations. Dr David Rock, author of Quiet Leadership, Six Steps to Transforming Performance at Work, suggests the following five-steps for establishing a coaching conversation and enabling self-directed learning:

  • Let the employee think through his specific issue. Avoid telling him what to do or giving advice. Ask questions about his though process.

  • Keep him focused on solutions not problems.

  • Challenge him to expand his thinking and stretch himself, instead of clinging to his comfort zone.

  • Focus on what he is doing well so you can play to his strengths.

  • Make sure there are clear processes behind every conversation. To be truly helpful, a coaching conversation requires permission to ask questions and explore possibilities.

As business and leadership coaches, we are continuously trying to see what lurks below the surface of the iceberg and help individuals achieve their full potential. All business leaders and managers need to develop these techniques. It is a key to business success in the 21st century and coaching can help. 

RLS Focused Solutions works on the development the full potential of organizations and individuals. Lets continue this conversation. Contact at bob@plangoals.com or call (910) 575-1286. Visit our Website: www.plangoals.com

Do Quiet Association Leaders Lead Best?

by Jeff Davidson

As many as two in five executives report being more introverted than extroverted. Traditional business lore, however, has it that extroverts are more likely to rise to the top. After all, outgoing people tend to be good at sales, influencing others, and communicating with impact.

So, what possible advantages can an introverted leader have? Actually, introverts enjoy many leadership advantages:

1.) They tend to be lower-key – Having a more methodical approach to management, introverts often exhibit a quiet sense of confidence that is reassuring to employees. Especially in tumultuous times, an introverted leader may have a calming effect on staff that an extroverted leader cannot approach.

2.) Introverts are idea people – Introverts have a built-in disposition for continually contemplating an array of new ideas. They pass on such ideas to their lieutenants and subordinates in the quest to find more productive ways to get things done. They are willing to accept the input from others. They constantly quiz their troops on ways to improve operations. They encourage ideas disseminating from all levels.

3.) They speak softly and carry a big stick – Recognizing that their influence over staff at all levels tends to be extraordinary, they often let others do the talking. When they have something to say, they offer a pithy observation or keen commentary that they know others will reflect upon. They look for the lightbulb to go off in others and are pleased when they are able to make that observation.

4.) They leave a word trail – Introverts make lists, take notes, and write things down. They know that a strong explanation helps enroll others while also serving as documentation for their decisions. They are more likely to think and write than their extroverted counterparts who might have a predisposition to simply act.

5.) They take time to reflect – Introverts are not afraid to be alone, and indeed seek out alone time. For them it is a chance for self-renewal and refocus. Time away from others gives them the opportunity to engage their imagination. Often, they are able to derive effective decisions as a result of having some alone time. Also, during high intensity activities, their prior alone time helps them to remain reflective and responsive as opposed to reactive and inaccessible.

In addition to all the above, many introverted-type leaders are also excellent at follow-through. They understand the importance of consistency when it comes to leading others, being true to one’s word, and making good on promises.

So, if you are an introvert, aspiring to leadership, fear not. Extroverted leaders have their advantages, and you have yours.

Jeff Davidson, “The Work-Life Balance Expert®,” is the world’s leading personal brand in terms of speaking, writing, or reflecting upon work-life balance issues. He is the author of  “Dial it Down, Live it Up,” “Simpler Living,” “Breathing Space,” “The 60 Second Self-Starter,” “The 60 Second Organizer,” “The 10 Minute Guide to Managing Your Time,” and “The 10 Minute Guide to Managing Stress,” as well as 24 iPhone apps in the “Work-Life Guide” series. His books have been published in 19 languages, and in aggregate 141 times. Jeff is an Advisory Board member for The Organized Executive, a monthly publication of the Columbia Books, Washington DC. He holds the registered trademark as “The Work-Life Balance Expert.” Jeff can be reached at http://www.BreathingSpace.com