Have you ever heard this phrase about leaders, that "It's lonely at the top."

You heard me, it could be lonely because..

You can't talk to your Board about your personal issues unless it's officially relevant..

You can't have pity parties with your staff and managers...

Your spouse and children have their issues to work on and besides, they are fed up with your constant need for a pep talk. 

Your bestie doesn't pretend that they can find you a solution, just a shoulder to cry on.

You can't talk to your peers, Managers and CEOs running their own organization because you compete with them on funding, volunteers, and policy space.

Seriously, this gets lonely when in specific issues where you need an impartial sounding board, there's no one to trust with that won't get your head axed.

There are many seminars, on-demand online workshops and educational resources.

But there's not substitute for a leadership coach that gets you from here to there in a nick of a time.

This coach will not be beholden to what you're fearing or interested in being part of the 'soup' you're in, therefore there is no incentive for him/her to act in conflict of interest or subvert his confidential mandate with you.

There is less on presenting a façade of perfection and organization, there is more effort focused on getting you the support that matters the most. 

Only a few people, some star performers and athletes could count on their coaches as a big part of their success because they believed in investing in themselves. 

The onus to win and become your best lies on you.

You can either invest or ignore this,  but don't complain when you feel all lonely when you have the power to never feel that way. 

A friendly reminder from your neighborhood leadership speaker, author, and coach. 

​If you want real-time strategy, just look at the current Middle East conflict involving Israel and Iranian proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iraqis and Syrian factions.

That this is fascinating case study with real-time development minute by minute is an under-statement.

Students of strategy, conflict resolution and negotiation, military history, state spy craft, and policy and global governance take copious notes. 

What is/are the strategic objectives of the following actors?

Israel

The United States

UK

France

Turkey

Lebanon State

The Islamic Republic of Iran

China

Russia 

Qataris/Saudis/Bahrainis

Jordan

Egypt

UN/UNRWA/UNIFIL

Non-state actors: corporates, NGOs, media, philanthropists

I just listed a couple of these actors and of course, not exhaustive.

But from someone looking at this as a strategy example, you can't help but think we have been here before.

There are clear patterns of behaviors and choices made in the past that can point to how this conflict will evolve in a few months.

It doesn't matter what you do.

Even if you're cleaning the sewer or mowing the lawn, it's a game-changer to be strategic.

If you're not being strategic, you're insidiously losing.

From my last keynote with Mines, I articulated three types of change responders:

15% are those that will not change- The Immovables.
Whether through commission or omission, they won't budge, no matter.

50% will be favorable to your change- The Converted.
This is your audience and you need to maintain their interest, alignment, and engagement. 

35% will be the agnostic - The Fence-Sitters and Hecklers. 
These are the people waiting for you to make a mistake, waiting for signs of seriousness or grave consequences for not cooperating with change. Some are resisting and will become the immovables. While some will realize their follies and get converted.

Differentiate the agnostics based on the values, interests/agenda, and emotions pervading the air and craft strategies that would best deal with these factors. 

Do not fear resistance. Resistance is a good sign of engagement. It's the placebo of a foreseeable future. Resisters can be easily dismantled based the logic they provide. Logically, once these issues are addressed, you can expect that initial passion of resistance will wane and people will adapt to their new situation. 

It's important to take a critical look at what you've got: Time/Resources/Risks

Do you all the time and resources in the world to have all these responders engaged until you win them over? Is winning them over the goal?

What constitutes a significant support to move the needle to the new direction?

What risks could you encounter when changing or continuing with the status quo? Which one would hurt the most?  

What engagement interventions will make or break the change process? 

Your call.