them in a merry dance chasing sub-goals rather than the main goal? What is it that makes them forget the initial purpose of the call to arms and fall into a pit of mediocrity rather than driving implementation swiftly to completion?

I do not pretend for one moment to have

We have seen the headlines in every country from time to time. If something is not done about "A" then the country will suffer the bad consequences "B". We see and hear a strident call from government to get behind a display of leadership to take a little pain so to get a lot of gain in a few years.

We have all also probably experienced it at some time in organisations we work for; the call to arms that tells us of an impending doom if we do not change our ways. And yet, nine times out of ten, it seems to me, the call is heard for a short time and then falls quiet against the soundproofing walls of organisational and individual inertia.

Why is it so? Why is it that when good men and women have analysed a situation, understood the cause and effect and with no little passion and clarity of argument determined that urgent and important solutions need to be implemented to a current or looming problem, that the passion dies, and alongside it, the clarity of argument?

What is it that prevents good people from not only maintaining a sense of urgency about what must be done, but also leads them in a merry dance chasing sub-goals rather than the main goal? What is it that makes them forget the initial purpose of the call to arms and fall into a pit of mediocrity rather than driving implementation swiftly to completion?

I do not pretend for one moment to have

gain in a few years.

We have all also probably experienced it at some time in organisations we work for; the call to arms that tells us of an impending doom if we do not change our ways. And yet, nine times out of ten, it seems to me, the call is heard for a short time and then falls quiet against the soundproofing walls of organisational and individual inertia.

Why is it so? Why is it that when good men and women have analysed a situation, understood the cause and effect and with no little passion and clarity of argument determined that urgent and important solutions need to be implemented to a current or looming problem, that the passion dies, and alongside it, the clarity of argument?

What is it that prevents good people from not only maintaining a sense of urgency about what must be done, but also leads them in a merry dance chasing sub-goals rather than the main goal? What is it that makes them forget the initial purpose of the call to arms and fall into a pit of mediocrity rather than driving implementation swiftly to completion?

I do not pretend for one moment to have

d then falls quiet against the soundproofing walls of organisational and individual inertia.

Why is it so? Why is it that when good men and women have analysed a situation, understood the cause and effect and with no little passion and clarity of argument determined that urgent and important solutions need to be implemented to a current or looming problem, that the passion dies, and alongside it, the clarity of argument?

What is it that prevents good people from not only maintaining a sense of urgency about what must be done, but also leads them in a merry dance chasing sub-goals rather than the main goal? What is it that makes them forget the initial purpose of the call to arms and fall into a pit of mediocrity rather than driving implementation swiftly to completion?

I do not pretend for one moment to have

rgent and important solutions need to be implemented to a current or looming problem, that the passion dies, and alongside it, the clarity of argument?

What is it that prevents good people from not only maintaining a sense of urgency about what must be done, but also leads them in a merry dance chasing sub-goals rather than the main goal? What is it that makes them forget the initial purpose of the call to arms and fall into a pit of mediocrity rather than driving implementation swiftly to completion?

I do not pretend for one moment to have

them in a merry dance chasing sub-goals rather than the main goal? What is it that makes them forget the initial purpose of the call to arms and fall into a pit of mediocrity rather than driving implementation swiftly to completion?

I do not pretend for one moment to have even a small majority of the answers to those questions. I do, however, have a few observations borne of experience of why something spoken of as having urgency and importance falls apart on the road to implementation.

My first observation is that the leader does not believe in the call to arms. This is the most potent of all limiting factors. When the leader mouths the words because they believe it is expected of them and it makes nice sound bite, then not only is urgency lost but so is importance.

A corollary to that observation is when the leader does not understand for what it is that they have asked. They may understand the outcome, but if they do not understand the detail of the effort and resources required then they are equally doomed to deliver little of a once passionate plea or promise.

It is not necessary that a leader understands every detail of an implementation pathway, but they had better understand the resource requirements. John F. Kennedy did not understand the detail of what was required to go to the moon, but he did know it would take the best minds, a creativ