Cheerleadership is not Leadership. Cheerleadership creates fake believers.–cheerleadership-creates-fake-believers&

Image result for cheerleadership

Imagine for a second that your boss is miles away from the day-to-day. A sufferer of Corner Office Syndrome he or she continues to make command decisions without consulting the team. The decisions are astounding to you and you start to question these far-off choices.

Now, your attention isn’t on doing the right thing for the business, but on how to stop the wrong thing your boss has put in play. You have two options. You could bite your lip and go with the flow. …Or …try to address this head-on which is no easy feat.

It could be too big of a risk to put your livelihood at stake. Your mind drifts again — pondering if this company is the right place for you. You wonder why you care so much. The easy thing to do would be to care less.

The truth is your faith in the business has splintered.

This inner conversation happens to many of us. When it does, you are officially not a believer anymore. You are transgressing into a fake believer.

When you lose belief, or don’t have something to believe in, it’s easy to fake believe.

But as Navy SEALs Jocko Willink & Leif Babin remind us in their book, “Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALS Lead & Win”, “They must believe in the cause for which they are fighting, they must believe in the plan they are asked to execute, and most important, they must believe in and trust the leader they are asked to follow.”

Building a cultural rocket ship is more rocket art than rocket science.

If your responsible for hiring talent in your company, then you already know it comes down to creating, retaining and sustaining internal believers.

Why is this so important?

Because believers aren’t just wanted—they are needed in order to create the necessary conviction that makes your organization thrive.

Consider these questions for a second: Do you often feel like you are on an island alone in your company? Do you have coworkers you can genuinely trust? Do you feel you’re being sucked into corporate politics? Are you in a Watch-Your-Back Culture or a Got-Your-Back Culture?

These are the questions that need to be openly talked about with your teams. And these are the types of conversations that are welcomed by true leaders.

This might be a good time to share a truth. I have a major gripe with the word leadership. Make no mistake that I believe we are in dire need of courageous leaders. However, I’ve seen too many poor leaders turn leadership into cheerleadership.

Poor leaders start ra ra’ing to their employees, which may work with some of your workforce, but your elite producers can see right through it. Internal discord starts the minute you send staff down inside themselves questioning, wondering and calling out a faulty decision.

Management guru Ken Blanchard is spot on when he writes……“It takes a whole team of people to create a great company but just one lousy leader to take the whole business down the pan.”

Making Believers all starts at the top with what I call your Believership.

I’m sure you noticed the world choice. The clear mission of leadership is to transform into the company’s Believership. The Believership’s job is to create believers in all directions: making believers out of your employees, your prospects, your customers and, when appropriate, your board.

One final reason I like calling it a “Believership” is because successful leading is not simply about one person. There’s a checks and balances system working together at the top – if you’re lucky, that group shares values but brings breadth of experience to the table. Courage and business are both team games.

Having an aligned Believership makes it easy for employees to believe. They set the vision for the company, deliver the truth (no matter how hard the circumstance) and create trust – the most essential ingredient – that unlocks a successful team.


A Supreme Court victory for lowering drug prices

A Supreme Court victory for lowering drug prices

A recent Supreme Court decision on patents — Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group — marks an understated victory, with far-reaching consequences that will positively impact families and communities across America. This case has deep implications for basic economic fairness, with the judiciary recognizing the importance of keeping critical checks in systems that have become far too imbalanced.

In the national media, this case is being held up as a victory for Silicon Valley and the wealthy tech elites. Perhaps this makes sense: The decision handed down April 24 preserves a process for disputing and overturning unmerited patents, helping curb the glut of patent trolls polluting the industry. But this is not just a victory for the ensconced Palo Alto bubble — working families are silent winners of this week’s Supreme Court decision.

In 2011, Congress created within the U.S Patent Office a body called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the patent office examines and grants patents, which are akin to giving a monopoly power for a period of time for an invention, the PTAB serves as an appeal body when such rights are disputed. This week’s SCOTUS decision affirmed that the PTAB can continue its role in ensuring that monopoly rights given through a patent can be reversed.P

Why is this important for ordinary Americans? Abuse of the patent system is directly tied to skyrocketing drug prices.

Americans of all political stripes are united on one thing: Drug prices have spiraled out of control. One in 4 Americans cannot fill their prescriptions because they can’t afford them. Nineteen million Americans are forced to go overseas to buy their drugs because companies don’t price fairly. And pharmaceutical companies get away with their exorbitant pricing by abusing our patent system.

In order to maintain monopolies on life-saving treatments, pharmaceutical companies often file dozens of unmerited patents on their drugs, blocking the generic competition that lowers prices. For example, Celgene has applied for over 100 patents on just one cancer drug, Revlimid. As a result, Celgene will likely make an extra $45 billion while Americans should have been able to access cheaper alternative generic options years ago.

The PTAB can curb that abuse and help restore integrity to our patent system, stopping drug companies from holding a wrongly issued monopoly for years or even decades more. In fact, roughly half of the pharmaceutical patents challenged through the new PTAB reviews are found to be unmerited. This includes patents on expensive drugs: The blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone, for example, is one drug the PTAB found to have been wrongly granted patents, thus allowing cheaper versions of the medicine to enter the market.

But more broadly, this Supreme Court decision offers a bit of respite and a rare moment of bipartisan consensus in an increasingly fractured America. The decision strikes at the heart of basic economic unfairness and the ways in which power has become concentrated in the hands of industries — like the pharmaceutical industry which works hard to lobby and advocate and influence to ensure that no checks and balances exist to curb their unfettered power. The Supreme Court upheld a basic mechanism to curb that power.

There is more work to be done. Congress must continue to improve upon the system it built in 2011. We must work to ensure our patent system rewards true invention and allows healthy competition, rather than encouraging frivolous patenting that rewards corporations at the expense of everyday Americans.

But the Oil States decision offers a glimmer of hope for patients and communities who are struggling to get medical treatment. This week’s Supreme Court decision makes it possible to believe that those families may have a shot at affording the medicines they so desperately need.



Trump to cut off key ObamaCare payments

Related image

President Trump will end key payments to insurers selling ObamaCare plans, the White House announced late Thursday, marking Trump’s most aggressive move yet to dismantle the law after multiple GOP efforts to repeal and replace it failed this year.

The Trump administration has continued making the the disbursements to insurers, known as cost-sharing reduction payments, on a monthly basis. But Trump had consistently threatened to end the payments, which are worth an estimated $7 billion this year.

“Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare. In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the White House said in a statement late Thursday night.

The payments were created as part of the Affordable Care Act but were then the subject of a lawsuit by House Republicans during the Obama administration. A federal court ruled the payments were being made illegally, but the Obama administration appealed.

Congress could still decide to appropriate the payments, and there is bipartisan agreement that they should be made. But no action has been taken, and some Republicans are hesitant to vote for what they see as a bailout of ObamaCare.

“The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system. Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.

The administration’s decision is likely to lead to lawsuits. It also puts enormous pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal on funding the payments, adding yet another partisan battle to an already full calendar.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) issued a joint statement calling the decision a “spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage … now, millions of hard-working American families will suffer just because President Trump wants them to.”

Meanwhile, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) praised the decision to end the Obama administration’s appeal of the subsidies.

“Today’s decision … preserves a monumental affirmation of Congress’s authority and the separation of powers,” Ryan said in a statement. “Obamacare has proven itself to be a fatally flawed law, and the House will continue to work with the Trump administration to provide the American people a better system.”

Cutting off the subsidies could throw the ObamaCare marketplace into chaos.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in August that about 1 million additional people would be uninsured in 2018 and insurance companies would raise premium prices by about 20 percent for ObamaCare plans if the payments were cut off.

The CBO also said halting the payments would increase the federal deficit by $194 billion through 2026, largely because federal assistance to buy ObamaCare plans rises when premiums do.

The payments help low-income people afford co-pays, deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs associated with health insurance policies. Insurers have called the payments critical, saying that without them, they would have to massively increase premiums or exit the individual market.

Many insurers have already priced their plans for the coming open enrollment period, which begins Nov. 1.

The leaders of Senate Health Committee have been working toward a bipartisan deal to fund the payments for two years in order to stabilize the markets in the short term.

But progress was halted when lawmakers tried to pass a last-ditch ObamaCare repeal bill from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) last month, and the sides have still not reached an agreement.

The decision on the payments comes after Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at loosening ObamaCare restrictions on insurance plans, which also could help destabilize the law.