TotalPicture Podcast Podcast


HTML | Text | Mobile

Become a Sponsor


Information on becoming a Sponsor for TotalPicture Radio podcasts is available on our FAQ page, or feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns.

Suggested Podcasts

Francie Dalton: Versatility

Versatility: A Critical Competency for Leaders Seeking to Engage and Retain High Performers.

Francie Dalton, president of Dalton AlliancesFrancie Dalton

"You want to be successful and want to retain your talent, you need to develop some versatility in your management style so that if at 2 o’clock you need to deal with a pleaser, you can do so and then turn right around 15 minutes later and be equally effective with an attacker." Francie Dalton

{mosimage} "A one-size-fits-all command and control management approach puts leaders on a fast-track to failure," according to Francie Dalton, president of Dalton Alliances, Inc. "To be successful in today’s multi-generational workplaces, managers need to be adept at navigating multiple personalities."

A popular speaker for associations and corporations, Dalton has lead hundreds of workshops, and is frequently quoted in the media in the areas of leadership and performance.

In her latest book, Versatility: How to Optimize Interaction When 7 Workplace Behaviors Are at Their Worst, (Amazon affiliate link), Dalton takes a tough love point of view on how leaders can neutralize the most challenging behaviors, at any level in an organization. Peter Clayton and Charee Klimek interviewed Dalton. The focus: how these behaviors relate to recruitment and retention challenges.

Francie Dalton – Versatility Interview Transcript
TotalPicture Radio with Peter Clayton and Charee Klimek

Welcome to a Leadership Channel podcast on TotalPicture Radio. This is Peter Clayton and Charee Klimek reporting. We’re delighted to be speaking again today with Francie Dalton who is the Founder and President of Dalton Alliances based in Columbia, Maryland.

Francie is a leadership in management consultant that works with organizations to help them bridge the gaps between where they are today and where they want to be in terms increasing products and organizational productivity. Francie specializes in the communication, behavioral and management sciences and has authored numerous books in these areas including her latest titled Versatility, A prerequisite for leadership success published by Westcom Press.

Francie, welcome back to TotalPicture Radio.

Francie: Thank you Peter, and hi Charee.

Charee: Hi there, how are you?

Francie: Fine thank you. Happy to be with you.

Peter: Before we dive in to discussing what may very well be a multiple personal disorder of the workplace, I want to talk about the war for talent, because you set the stage so well during the introduction of your book Versatility when you describe the severe deficits the US is facing in pretty much every sector. I mean the war is real enough for the front lines of recruitment.

Francie: It certainly is and it’s not just the quantitative deficit. If it were, I mean that alone is devastating. Remember we’re going to be lacking 6 million human beings within the next few years for jobs that we have opened in this country for which we can neither import talent or export the jobs. This is a very real shortage. It’s not just, “Oh well, no problem because we can put the jobs offshore or export the work somewhere else.” No, no, no, no, no. This 6 million person deficit is real.

Charee: Right.

Francie: Not only is there a quantitative deficit, there is a qualitative deficit because so many fewer Americans are getting degrees. We have dropped from first place to seventh place in graduating young adults from college among the top 30 industrialized nations in this world. It’s severe.

Charee: At the same time, there is this seemingly unmanageable war that’s happening inside organizations and that’s a war for retention. I think one of the recent statistics that I read that was completely shocking, I think it was the Harris Interactive Study, they reported that 74% of workers would change jobs if one presented itself, so that’s a pretty high silent majority. The twist is the same poll showed that most people are generally satisfied with their job. So what’s going on inside the heads of that 74%? Are people afraid to say how they really feel?

Francie: Probably not. If the polls are done correctly – and I can’t imagine Harris would do anything other than a perfectly executed poll which protects anonymity – the issue isn’t that they don’t like their work. People don’t quit companies and they don’t quit jobs, they quit their managers. So the reason people – I think this 74% who are happy but many of whom will still leave their jobs anyways is for to one of two reasons. Either the quantity of work or the quality of management is such that it erodes their private life. It erodes their enjoyment of what they do and they don’t want to do it anymore. What’s terrifying is how many people who no longer aspire to managerial roles. They don’t want the additional responsibility because it usurps life and that’s not wrong, it pretty much does.

Charee: I know a few people that have chosen not to go into management because of that very reason.

Francie: Just imagine, if we can’t define management as something lower than C-level, just imagine – and when I say C-level I mean like people who have chief in their title like chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, etc., etc. People no longer aspire the management jobs, certainly they longer aspire to those C-level jobs. We’re going to have a problem in this country and it’s already starting, so you’ve either already gotten on the bandwagon here and started very intelligent and aggressive retention efforts or it’s already too late. People are going to be poaching your people. Other organizations are going to steal your people and they’re going to woo them away with shorter work hours, less responsibility, intellectually stimulating work, fun work environments, can share services, even bringing your dogs to work.

So the question then becomes, what can you do to hold on to your talent? It’s about your managerial skill and you tell me where that’s taught? It isn’t? What academic program do any of the three of us know of and I’m happy to be told I’m wrong? Do any of us know an academic program that teaches interpersonal skill as part of the degree? I think degree programs in management certainly teach the function of management, but interpersonal fluency, versatile interpersonal skills are screamingly absent and yet they are the crux of why people leave.

Peter: Well, it’s sort of in that same vein Francie, we have four generations who are now in the workplace and that’s the first time in history that’s ever happened and leaders are challenged to manage through styles in addition to competency gaps, technological changes, and now the behaviors and how Gen Y relates to the baby boomer generation. That can really cause an overwhelming problem but I believe you get at the root cause in your book by exposing difficult personalities for what they really are and forcing us to actually deal with them to be versatile in how we manage ourselves in order to better understand and manage others, is that correct?

Francie: That’s perfectly said, yes. Here’s the real newsflash. If you aren’t getting what you need in the workplace from other people – hello, put your seatbelt on, here’s the newsflash: You are complicit in that outcome. It’s not sufficient to complain that you aren’t getting what you need from your staff. Look at what the causal factors are and they are not solely and exclusively because this person is worthless or this person needs to be fired or this person just doesn’t get it. Consider using a different approach. Now, here’s an example that okay, I admit this is a stupid example. I admit, okay? I’m going to be stupid. We’re older, right? But you know what; this stupid example is going to sear into the mind of your listeners a really important point.

Peter, would you be willing to tell me please sir what shoe size you wear?

Peter: I’m an 11½.

Francie: I wear an 8. Listeners, let’s pretend and forget that this isn’t realistic, just play with me for a second here, just work with me for a second here. Let’s pretend Peter is on the exhibit floor of the largest exhibit in the country and whether he can get his foot into my shoe or not is irrelevant. He is to do his best whatever that is. He cannot wear his shoes, he cannot go barefoot. He has to wear my shoes, so we’re talking about an 11 foot…

Charee: You’re going to be pretty uncomfortable, Peter.

Francie: No kidding and plus it’s – what do you call those things that I used to be able to wear when I was young – spiked heels… stiletto heels. So his calves are really going to be in pain and he’s got to walk that entire exhibit floor in three hours. Now just think about that for a second. I understand it’s stupid, I get that, but tell me something, is that example anymore stupid than expecting your management style to suit everybody? I mean aren’t those things equally ridiculous? Your management style is not going to land well with everybody! Get over it!

Charee: Right.

Francie: You want to be successful and want to retain your talent, you need to develop some versatility in your management style so that if at 2 o’clock you need to deal with a pleaser, you can do so and then turn right around 15 minutes later and be equally effective with an attacker.

Charee: Francie, you speak about personality versatility specifically as being a critical competency for leadership, that and being mindful of 10 guiding principles which I really thought were fantastic but the first one specifically I think is so important for our listeners because so many people think that they could still change other people. When I read that it made me go back to thinking about conversations with friends who are recently divorced that said, “I thought he would change,” and you can inspire their behavior, you can influence their decisions, you can motivate them, inspire them to do a lot of things but when it comes right down to it, you really can’t change their beliefs, their attitudes, can you?

Francie: The last two words – I was going to answer one way and then you got me with those last two words. There are hundreds and hundreds of models of behavior, but the one that I think is most universally applicable suggests that there are three inputs to behavior or three causes, three factors that produce our behavior. They are beliefs (as you just said), needs… fundamental human needs and the situation.

So if I report to you Charee, how many of those three things do you have control over? Do you have control over my fundamental needs as a human being?

Charee: I guess that depends on the compensation that I provide, your work environment, making sure that you’re in a happy place to work.

Francie: Okay, fine. Do you have control over my fundamental beliefs as a human being?

Charee: Probably not. Not unless I really knew you as a person and that obviously creates some boundaries from the bud or boss syndrome that some face.

Francie: Right, and you can’t control them again…

Charee: No.

Francie: …you can influence. So what about the situation I’m in at the moment?

Charee: I guess I could probably influence.

Francie: Right.

Charee: I would hope that I can control it but I think that’s the trap that many bosses fall into; they want to be able to control situations. They want to be able to control outcomes, yet it’s getting to that attitude, getting to that belief to really get into the hearts and minds of the people that are working for them to get them to want to do something in a way that’s going to be beneficial for the greater good of the company.

Francie: Exactly. Let me push back for just one second here. When I asked you if you could control my needs, you said, “Well gee, to the extent that I control your compensation then yeah, I can control your needs whether or not they’re met,” and stuff like that. But permit me to suggest that’s a component of the situation. My needs might be for prayer time five times a day. My needs might be for a vegan environment. I could have any number of needs attendant to my template that you cannot control.

Charee: Sure, absolutely.

Francie: I think at a max, you’ve got control over one of those, which is the situation I’m in at the moment, because you’re my boss, so that suggests then that you’ve got, at max, control over 33% of my behavior. You better find another way besides expecting me to change if you want my behavior to change because guess what, 33% is not enough. I’m reinforcing your point.

You cannot control somebody else. You got a 30% shot at it and that just isn’t enough. You made another point. Your comments are so highly substantive, the two of you just really make it tough on us, don’t you?

You made another point which had to do with making sure that you approach people in a way that lands well with them, so let me just suggest to your listeners that they not share this book with male adolescents… sorry Peter. Here’s the deal, because it teaches people how to package what they want from other people in a way that makes them want to give it to you. Hello! That makes you pretty powerful. Adolescents are already powerful enough. This book teaches you how to package what you want from seven different crazy-making workplace behaviors in a way that makes them, to your point Charee, want to give it to you.

Peter: Francie, let’s dive into some of the personality types you talked about in your book which actually are gleaned from 18 years of attendee behavior in your workshop, The Chameleon’s Edge, where you help people understand how to package what they want from others in a way that makes them want to give to you like you just said. Begin with the commanders – how do we package what we want from a commander to interact successfully with this command-and-control personality type?

Francie: You just said it perfectly. Command and control is it? The top line if I could give only one thing for this style of behavior that would most enable the success of your listeners in interacting with this style would be to link everything you want from them to results, order and control. Now mind you, whose results, order and control we’re talking about? Not yours.

Peter: Right.

Francie: Theirs. If you can’t link what you want from the commander boss to better results for that boss, better control for that boss, or better order for that boss, then go bang your head against a brick wall, because you’ll have the same result. That’s what flows through their veins, not blood. People don’t understand how they procreate because they basically go to bed in a three-piece suit. You could yank them out of bed at 3 a.m. and they can go take the hill. That’s just what they’re wired to do is take the hill.

So if this is your boss, anticipate and then don’t go ask permission, anticipate what comes next and do it. And if you don’t get the chance to strut your stuff and show that you did it in advance because you were smart enough to anticipate, then suck it up and don’t look for a pat on the head. At some point, you’re going to have the chance to show, to prove, to demonstrate that you anticipated and took initiative in advance. You do that a couple of times and the commander will trust you.

Charee: That’s really how we get command and control managers to stop micromanaging? It’s all about trust if I heard you correctly?

Francie: Yes, that’s exactly right and the way you get – commanders don’t trust anybody, unless that person has demonstrated that they think the same way the commander does which of course, is the only way to think.

Peter: How does a commander interact with a drifter? A drifter seeks freedom and the commander wants to well, you know, command, right?

Charee: That’s right.

Francie: Here’s the interesting about that. Believe it or not, antithetically opposed those styles are, they can actually reside in the same person without needing a straightjacket and a padded room and a shrink of their own or 10. So here’s the thing. We might be a drifter with our superiors because our job with them is to brainstorm or to be in a think tank, but we might be a commander with our subordinates because we then want them to execute. We might be a commander at home because our spouse is a slob or is a drifter. We could be a drifter at work because we work for Walt Disney or we work for United Artists or we work for Pixar. Yes these styles are antithetically opposed and on the face of it, purely from a theoretically standpoint, those two would be at each other throats but the commander is smart enough to put the right tool to the right job and would not assign a drifter to a role that requires high structure and if the commander didn’t have such a job, they would push the delete button on the drifter.

Charee: Would a drifter really survive in a really strict corporate environment though or is this drifter going to be more creative at a company like Google where they can really be creative and they don’t have to be afraid of being that free spirit?

Francie: That’s a really good question and the answer is if there were such things as pure 100% styles that align with what’s in this book, you would be absolutely correct. But pretty much no one is 100% of anything. We’re all a blend. So although ideally if my predominant style is that of a drifter, you are absolutely right, Charee; I would be happier and would land better in Google type environment, an arena where I can kick back and not have to be so highly structured. However, if drifter is one part of, let’s say, three parts, then I can likely accommodate some structure as long as you give me ice cream when I’m done.

Charee: Speaking of creative environments and being able to innovate and I think about bursting the creativity bubble, we bring attackers into the fold. I mean these folks are brutal. They’re cynical, they’re the types of the people quit their jobs over. Heck, I think I’d rather work for a commander than an attacker. Help us out here; this is a really big one, this is hurtful to organizations.

Francie: Yeah, and it’s hurtful to people. I often say that you hear echoes or rehear what attackers say to you in the middle of the night. Their words that wake you up and hurt and you remember them as though they were yesterday even though you’re 97 in your rocking chair on your porch.

Here’s the thing though, attackers – and I’m not defending their behavior mind you; I’m just pointing out that if you have not interacted with one in your work environment then count your blessings. Most of us who have at least a little bit of gray hair have encountered them and they don’t usually get fired because by the time they get away with behavior like this, they either make biggest sales, bring in the most revenue, are in bed with a board chair, or somehow know someone important or are related to somebody important and etc., where the company would rather endure the risk of litigation ensuing from this behavior than to lose the competence this person brings to the table.

If you have to make a major presentation and it’s a career-making presentation for you, you can make that presentation and ask for feedback from the drifter in which case you will get nothing because they stopped paying attention after you said three words or you can ask it of the attacker who self actualizes from ripping your performance to shreds. I would you rather find out what’s wrong with your presentation before you make it or when you make it? Well, attackers also – I often hear people say, “I hated working for that person but I learned more from that person in a shorter period of time that I would have learned anywhere else.”

Charee: They are brutally honest and that’s something that if we can just a little bit thicker skin, we can understand how to work within that environment and maybe not take things so personally.

Francie: That’s well said, because here’s the thing. Attackers don’t just hate you, they hate everybody. They don’t think you’re an idiot all by yourself. They think everybody is an idiot. There’s no point in taking it personally because it’s the blubbering masses of humanity that they have disdain for, not just you; it’s equal opportunity hating here and disdain.

So if you are wired to withstand working with an attacker, you know it and if you’re not, you also know it and if you’re not wired to withstand working with an attacker, get out.

Charee: Now as far as attackers go, our next personality is people pleasers, so when I first went from the attackers to the people pleasers, I thought, “Hmm, are people pleasers an attackers dream come true? Is there someone that attackers can really control?” Because people pleasers, I mean we know they don’t know how to say know regardless of the cost to themselves. They carry a ton of stress. How do you help them manage and understand their own behavioral change as a people pleaser to better cope with the realities of work life?

Francie: I know you did not just ask me how to change a pleaser.

Charee: How to cope with the reality.

Francie: Oh okay, that’s right darling. Just checking, yeah because you’re not going to…

Charee: I did understand their – well, I said their own behavioral change, so we can change our own behavior or our own perceptions to better cope with other people.

Francie: That’s exactly right.

Charee: We have more control over changing our own behavior I should say.

Francie: That’s exactly right. You hit the nail on the head, so that’s an interesting scenario that you point out as a possible fit. The pleaser who wants to please might make a good fit for the attacker who just wants everything done their way and is brutal about it. Here’s the rub though, attackers hurt other people and pleasers have a tough time being in an environment where other people are hurt.

Charee: Sure, they’re the kind ones.

Francie: That’s right. I would suggest that a pleaser would make perhaps a good subordinate for the commander, maybe. It’s just that the pleasers are emotional. They need you to be familial as though they are an extension of your family and commanders just don’t do emotion. They don’t do Kumbaya.

The way to help the pleaser, I think, if they are in an environment that’s rough and tumble is to help them understand the greater good. “Yes, I as an attacker tore that person over there a brand new one. In fact, I’ve torn them 10 new ones since they started here, but that’s because they put the organization at risk. So Susie or Sam, I understand it’s wounding to you to see me do that to them, but they put 100 people at risk and I have to value those 100 people more than I value the one person.” That may or may not work in every situation. I’m not trying to offer blanket solutions here. I simply mean to imply that pleasers are good at humanizing the workplace and they tend to people and they unify and calm and warm up environments. Some people care about that and some people don’t.

Charee: Isn’t that a really strong trait to have in today’s organizations where we need them to be much more humanized, we need them to be more open and social and collaborative? Is a pleaser really someone that we can build on the strength that they have in humanizing the company?

Francie: I think we can build on the strengths that each of these style have because they all do in fact have great strengths. Let me go to the extreme. Even though I know this is not your question, let me go to the extreme of your question.

If you had an organization that was facing financial trouble and you put an execute team together to solve it and all of them were pleasers, does that begin to reveal how having too much of a certain style can be ruinous…

Charee: Oh absolutely, and I see your point where all of these styles have incredible strengths and so figuring out how to help them all work better together is really the magic equation.

Francie: If you have all attackers, you better be at war or you better be on one side or the other of a legal suit or you better be a corporate radar – I mean they have strengths. Attackers can endure loneliness and unpopularity longer than anybody else. You put a whole organization run by attackers or put them on a decision and make only attackers deal with the decision, you’re going to have a problem. Similarly, if you put all commanders, all drifters, all pleasers.

So the whole point of this book is to help – it has implications for how we structure teams. It has implications for how we approach decisions. It has implications for retention strategies. It has implications for day-to-day management.

Charee: I can also see implications for learning and development be really critical in this area in understanding how these personalities, what their learning types are and how they learn from one another even.

Francie: Winston Churchill once said, “I really do value learning. I love learning. I just don’t like being taught,” and that would be the response of the commander for example, because anytime you teach the commander something or bring innovation into the fold, for a while that spikes their learning curve and in so doing reveals at least temporary incompetence until they master it. The last thing commanders want to do is look incompetent. They need to be in control of everything. So if you inject innovation into that or change, temporarily they’re going to look incompetent, so you can’t bouncing all bubbly and excited with this brand new cool idea that you think is going to make the company more money into the commander’s office. That’s not how to present innovation to them. You can do that with a drifter, you can do it with a pleaser, you can do it with a performer, but you begin to see how we sell our ideas to one another, how we solve problems with one another, how we even confront problems with one another. The success of all of that resides in our packaging techniques.

Peter: Let’s lighten this up a little bit guys and talk about performers. The type of person that’s pretty fun to be around, right? Can we harness them to help drive employee engagement and maybe get them to ignite the fire in the belly of the avoiders out there?

Francie: I don’t think that you can change avoiders, but performers absolutely – you’re right Peter, they are charismatic, entertaining. They’re so much fun. They’ve got – you know if there is tension in the room, the performer just knows exactly what to say. They know exactly what to say and how to say it so that tension simply goes poof! It just dissolves instantly. They are so gifted as ambassadors, as sales people, as performer-ing. They are wonderful at customer acquisition. They’re only great like that as long as you’re not standing in their spotlight. Beware, because they will – Peter, if you were my boss and I were a performer, I would distort everything I tell you to make my image look good and you took action based on what I tell you, you’d end up with egg on your face, because performers – can we use the 3-letter word “lie.” They lie and they lie to make themselves look better and they blame other people for anything that goes wrong. So yes, they’re wonderful and they will continue to be wonderful and be entertaining and fun as long as you do not embarrass them in public, steal their spotlight or even step into their spotlight. If you do that, they will get you.

Charee: I think people hear the term performer and automatically assume well they’re going to be our high performer. They’re going to be wonderful. They have that spirit, that drive that we want to replicate throughout our entire organization but often those negative side effects I’ll call them of the ego I guess would probably be the right direction to take that and can really be detrimental.

Francie: You’re making me realize that I probably should have named that style something more like politico or something because I didn’t mean to imply by the use of the word performer that they are our performers in the organizations. What I meant to imply is that they are attention hogs or egomaniacs only at their worst.

Peter: The analyticals. I want to talk about analyticals because I’m not one.

Francie: Okay.

Charee: I’ve learned this weekend neither am I.

Peter: How do we learn to speak their language and at the same time keep them from over-thinking everything behaviorally speaking? I would think the analytical would be the first to put up a red flag to say behaviors can’t be measured.

Francie: That’s absolutely correct. They would say that. Tell me something you want from an analytical that you’re having trouble getting, is that possible? Can you do that?

Peter: Budget, yeah, projections, trends, take out your little crystal ball and give me some numbers that I can deal with.

Charee: How about a budget for employee engagement.

Francie: Everything you’ve said are things that fall squarely within what they should be doing and yet we have trouble getting these things from them, so here’s why. They want to give you those things but they want to be absolutely – here’s the word, ready? Certain, that what they give you or what they tell you is correct and since a trend can have a new point, trajectory line in a matter of hours depending of what you’re measuring, there is no such thing as certainty. It’s elusive which is why they’re in a constant state of ambiguity because, “Well these are the projections as of right now, but if you just give me another hour Peter, it might different or if you just give me another – wait, I mean, so and so hasn’t put in their data yet so it’s going to be off, so there’s no way I can, etc.,”

Charee: We’re facing so much uncertainty in every aspect of business today. This must be driving the analyticals crazy.

Francie: Here’s a way to manage them and help them give you what you need in a way that makes them reasonably comfortable. You can ask them for three different scenarios, okay.

The other thing is that they are notorious for is asking for is asking for a deadline extensions, so what you might consider doing there is for any assignment you give them, you set the start and end dates or the start and delivery dates but you require that they set measurable milestones in between two points and then you check in with them at those milestones dates, so that you know if the project is going off track.

Lastly, you can take the fear away or the concern about inaccuracy off the shoulders of the analytical by simply saying if I require you, if I insist that you give me this report today when your advice is to wait until next week, I will take responsibility for whatever negative impacts occur as a result, but give it to me now.

Another thing you could do is – to your question Charee about how do you get them to give you a budget for behavioral work. They find behavioral experts or they find experts or consultants or subcontractors or whatever they want to find to achieve clearly defined outcomes and then they find out what that would cost and that’s the budget. That doesn’t seem to me to be as much of an issue as telling the analytical that – I mean where they have a problem is thinking that every single solitary person in the company should live and breathe policies and procedures, should never deviate from those. Exceptions are not to be made, reports have to come in on time, everybody should meet their budget and I’m not just talking about the total budget, I’m talking about every single line item. If you spent zero in line item #3 but spent 100% more than you were supposed to in line item #2 and the outcome is that it’s a wash, the analyticals still cares about that, even though it makes no difference to the bottom line.

So the analytical who is a pure analytical is convinced, utterly, that something happens in the process of photocopying a document that justifies proofreading photocopies. Now, if you think about that, imagine being managed by such a person…

Peter: Imagine being married to such a person.

Francie: Oh God, help us all! What you want to do is affirm them because you know what, they want more than anything is to be affirmed for covering. If we had listened to them, if we had paid attention to them, the Challenger incident would never have happened.

Charee: Because they’re always thinking 10 steps into the future, as you point out.

Francie: That’s right. They’re very smart and all they want to do is protect, they elevate fiduciary responsibility to their reason for being and it is from that frame of reference that they exhibit this behaviors that so aggravate the rest of us, so what we need to honor in them is their ability to assess risks. Unlike avoiders, analyticals are willing to take risks. It’s just they don’t want to take it off the CD or they want you to at least engage in some due diligence, at least do some study and research that grounds your projections in something other than your gut feel and well they should. All of us can overdo our strengths and when we overdo them, that’s when we become aggravating to people. Once we can learn how to recognize the strengths that underlie what makes us crazy about people, our esteem for them goes up. As a result of our esteem for them going up, our ability to work with them and to modify our own behaviors to piss them off less goes up.

Peter: Francie, this has been incredibly enlightening and fun. We really appreciate you going into so much detail and thank you so much for joining us today on TotalPicture Radio.

Francie: Oh, it has been my distinct pleasure. Thank you so, so much. It was fun.

Charee: It’s been a lot of fun.

Francie: It has been. I hope to “see you guys again” soon.

Charee: Absolutely.

Peter: Right.

Francie: Thank you so much and have a great day.

Peter: You too.

Charee: Thank you Francie, bye-bye.

We’ve been speaking with Francie Dalton, the Founder and President of Dalton Alliances. Her new book is titled Versatility, A Prerequisite for Leadership Success published by Westcom Press. We welcome your participation in our conversation today. Visit Francie’s feature page in the Leadership Channel of TotalPicture Radio, that’s to voice your opinions.

This is Peter Clayton reporting. Thank you for tuning in.

Peter Clayton

About Peter Clayton

Peter Clayton, Producer/Host, is an award-winning producer/director of radio, television, documentary, video, interactive and Web-based media who has created breakthrough media for a wide array of Fortune 100 clients.


Posting advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited.
ads by google
Posted in:
Interview Channels,
Leadership Interviews