On August 8, 2008, weeks after Edwards was spotted visiting Hunter at a Beverly Hills hotel, he publicly confessed the affair to an ABC News reporter. However, he vehemently denied being the father of Hunter's six-month-old baby. As if to salvage some of his tarnished image, he made certain to mention that his wife's cancer was in remission when the affair began.

Fast forward to January 21, 2010. In a statement issued to NBC news, Edwards admitted that he is indeed the father of Hunter's daughter. "It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and, hopefully, one day, when she understands, she will forgive me," Edwards said in his statement. Edwards' disclosure came just as another of his campaign aides, Andrew Young, would admit to claiming paternity for Hunter's child as a favor to the candidate.

So What Else is New?

Certainly, the "bombshell" revelation that a politician lied to the public should not come as a surprise. Politicians lie all the time, don't they? And didn't we all suspect that Edwards was fibbing all along? What is surprising is how easily he lied.

But here's a question for you. If he had come clean immediately, would that change your opinion of Edwards? If he had responded to the early rumors by saying, "Yep, we had an affair and there's a baby on the way," would you have more or less respect for him today?

Leaders confront the how-much-to-reveal dilemma all the time. Maybe there's an organizational shakeup coming six months down the road that will undoubtedly impact employees. Should you tell them now and give them adequate time to prepare (even if that means some good people might look for other jobs)? Or should you wait a few months in case the plans change and the turmoil can be avoided?

Your answer determines how much credibility you have. Face it: politicians have reputations as liars for a reason. Seriously, will you ever believe another thing John Edwards says? I, for one, am even having trouble buying his claim that he hopes his daughter will forgive him one day.
 
When faced with the choice of being too honest or just honest enough, err on the side that will preserve your credibility.

Labels: communication, credibility, employees, integrity, leadership, trust

In the spirit of the countless year-in-review lists that appear every January, I'm happy to present the Vital Integrities Blog's annual ranking of the ten dumbest leadership actions of the past twelve months. From corporate scandals to political missteps to coaching shenanigans, 2009 was jam-packed with stories of stupid leadership behavior. Here, then, are just ten examples of dim-witted leadership moves appearing in the news last year.

1. As the year began, Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis basked in the glory of his company's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. At a time when financial institutions were collapsing all around him, Lewis had brilliantly snagged a coveted prize -- or so it seemed. As it turned out, Merrill Lynch had its own problems: $15 billion in losses that Lewis knew about but neglected to disclose to BofA shareholders. Lewis also forgot to mention that, as part of the deal, BofA had approved the payments of $5.8 billion in bonuses to the very Merrill executives who created the losses. Before long, Lewis was asking Congress for an additional $20 billion in taxpayer aid, bringing the government's total BofA bailout to $45 billion. Bamboozled stockholders wisely booted him as board chair, and the SEC has filed charges. The beleaguered Lewis gallantly resigned as CEO.

2. Pilots captaining a Northwest Airlines flight from San Diego to Minneapolis led their passengers off course -- by 150 miles! Tim Cheney and Richard Cole claimed they were so engrossed in deciphering the airline's new crew-scheduling system on their laptop computers that they lost track of time and forgot to land the plane (Delta Airlines acquired Northwest earlier in the year). Air traffic controllers, unable to establish radio contract with the plane for 77 minutes, feared it had been hijacked and notified military officials. As a result, air defense commanders readied fighter jets for a possible midair interception. The FAA promptly revoked the pilots' licenses and, hopefully, confiscated their laptops.

3. When Carlotta Freeman reported that a male co-worker was badgering her with "sexually explicit and racially charged statements," her supervisor at the Whirlpool plant in La Vergne, Tennessee told her to ignore him. When the harassment continued, that same supervisor offered another brilliant solution: he suggested that Freeman give in and have sex with the man. The verbal abuse persisted before turning physical: angry that she reported him yet again, Freeman's white harasser punched her in the face and knocked her onto an assembly line. In court, Whirlpool tried to deny its responsibility in the incident; however, federal Judge John T. Nixon found that every level of management mishandled Freeman's complaints and ordered the company to pay her $1 million.

4. Managers at a Wal-Mart store in Easton, Pennsylvania were concerned that employees were stealing merchandise. So, hoping to catch dishonest workers in the act of shoplifting, the supervisors secretly installed a video camera: in a public unisex bathroom! Employees, who also used the bathroom as a changing room, discovered the surveillance camera and complained. According to a lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart, management fired three of the workers for reporting the unlawful invasion of privacy.

5. The dumbest-comment-by-a-leader award goes to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. After a passenger aboard a Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit attempted to set off an explosive device, Napolitano announced on CNN that "the system worked." Critics swiftly pointed out that the "system" she was referring to allowed a would-be bomber, whose name had been added to a database of possible terrorists, to board an international flight without any luggage and with a one-way ticket that he paid for with cash. Napolitano claimed her remark had been taken out of context, but later conceded, "Our system did not work in this instance."

6. After U.S. taxpayers coughed up $173 billion to rescue financial behemoth American International Group from certain extinction, the company paid its top executives $165 million in bonuses. It was that kind of audacity that prompted government pay czar Kenneth Feinberg to implement a $500,000 salary cap for executives of bailed-out companies. For some leaders at AIG, that meant sizeable pay cuts. So Anastasia Kelly, AIG's general counsel, led a handful of executives who threatened to resign if the cap was enforced. While the other executives changed their minds, Kelly made good on her warning and quit. Now that's a system that works. As if to prove that AIG executives are clueless, CEO Robert Benmosche issued a press release saying, "On behalf of the management team, employees, and the Board of Directors, I would like to thank Stasia for her tireless service to the company."

7. Texas Tech University officials fired head football coach Mike Leach for mistreating an injured player. After receiver Adam James was diagnosed with a concussion, Leach allegedly ordered trainers to put him in "the darkest place you can find." And they obeyed, forcing James to stand in an unlit equipment room while the rest of the team practiced. According to James, the former Big 12 coach of the year isolated him again two days later in a noisy electrical closet; when the buzzing became unbearable, trainers moved him to an empty pressroom and again told him not to sit. TTU booted Leach days before the Red Raiders were to play in the Alamo Bowl, and mere moments before Leach was to collect an $800,000 bonus.

8. Speaking of dumb coaches: The Covenant School in Texas fired girls basketball coach Micah Grimes for inflicting a 100-0 pounding over opponent Dallas Academy. Officials at Covenant, a private Christian high school, promptly apologized for the blowout and moved to forfeit the game. Dallas Academy teaches students struggling with diagnosed learning differences. For his part, Grimes refused to apologize for the smack down, saying his team "played with honor and integrity."

9. For several days in June, residents of South Carolina did not know where their Governor Mark Sanford was. Not to worry, said his staff eventually; the governor is off "hiking the Appalachian Trail." That phrase soon became a naughty euphemism when Sanford later admitted that he had in fact been secretly visiting his mistress in Argentina. Efforts to impeach Sanford were unsuccessful, but his wife told him to take a hike.

10. It was a bad year for South Carolina Republicans. As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on health care reform, Representative Joe Wilson angrily shouted, "You lie!" The emotional outburst stunned politicos on both sides of the aisle. "No president has ever been treated like that. Ever," said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Wilson later apologized for his "lack of civility."

Labels: credibility, integrity, leadership, management

 Tom Schulte Says:
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:55:00 AM

What a great list of blunders, George! I am certainly glad that I didn't make the list :)

What do you think? Post a Comment

A company I know recently replaced its time clocks with an "automated" timekeeping solution. The goal was to streamline payroll processing by eliminating some manual procedures. Employees now log in and out at a computer and the information is electronically fed directly to the payroll system. There are no timecards for managers to tally or reports to complete; everything is automatic.

Except, of course, that it isn't.

Sometimes the computer is down and employees can't log in. Or they forget to log out prior to going home. Or they log out seven minutes later than their scheduled quitting time, pushing them into overtime. Or…well, you get the point.

Organizational development experts call these issues second-order consequences. When attempting to solve one problem, companies often create indirect or deferred glitches along the way.

And second-order consequences can cause more trouble than the original problem. While the new timekeeping system has saved time for the company's payroll department, it has placed a new burden on its unit managers. All those exceptions must be tracked and entered into the system. So, to address these unforeseen consequences, the company has implemented another change. Now, when employees neglect to log in or out, for example, they simply fill out a form detailing the exceptions. Their managers must then manually make the adjustments on the automated system.

One manager, who has dozens of employees, comes in on weekends just to sort through the stack of exception forms and update the system. She would do it on work time, but she can't fit the extra four hours into her schedule. In this case, the solution to the second-order consequences has created third-order consequences.

At the pace with which change happens in the workplace today, second-order consequences are inevitable. Leaders can try to predict all the possible ramifications of change, but every new initiative carries the risk of unanticipated side effects. The way in which leaders adjust to those consequences -- and keep them from spiraling out of control -- defines how well they manage change.

Labels: business, employees, leadership, management

Boxing champion Daniel Mendoza could really throw a punch. Despite his relatively small size for a heavyweight -- barely five feet seven and 160 pounds -- he dominated the British prize-fighting scene in the late 1700s. But it wasn't simply the power behind Mendoza's slugging that allowed him to dispatch his larger opponents. In fact, the timing of his punches gave him a unique advantage.

As a pioneer of the scientific approach to boxing, Mendoza figured out a seemingly obvious way to defeat his challengers: throwing the first punch. While his bigger and stronger competitors expected the diminutive fighter to play defense, Mendoza caught them off guard with his audacity to land the first blow. Mendoza's hit-first technique is credited as the inspiration for the idiom, beating them to the punch.

As it turns out, Mendoza's boxing strategy can help you win the verbal skirmishes waged against your creativity on a daily basis.

Perhaps you've noticed when offering a suggestion that someone is always eager to shoot down your idea. A well-meaning boss, for example, might dismiss your recommendation with the helpful recollection, "We tried that once, and it didn't work." Or a coworker might admonish, "Management will never go along with that idea." If you're like most people, you get weary of the constant jabs at your innovation and stop making suggestions.

Why not employ Mendoza"s fighting style when selling your ideas? The champ knew his opponents were going to punch him, so he punched them first. No, I'm not saying you should physically hit people who assail your ideas. But if you expect their arguments, you can beat them to the persuasive punch.

Here's an example: In his speech to the 1948 Democratic National Convention, Hubert Humphrey called for civil rights reform. The way it would normally work is that Humphrey would make his remarks and, the following day, the opposing opinions of his political rivals would appear in the media. Humphrey would have to answer his opponents the next day, but by then his argument would have lost steam.

But rather than waiting for the other side to voice its contrary view, Humphrey stated it for them, and in the same sentence he provided his follow-up response. "To those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late." In other words, Humphrey anticipated his opponents' attack, and he beat them to the punch.

Know that there will always be people with good reasons why your ideas are bad ones. When preparing your case, stop and consider their most likely arguments. Then, like Humphrey, build your counterattack into your sales pitch. "To those who say we've tried this before without success, I say our previous experience has shown us the obstacles we can overcome."

When demonstrating your creativity, never go down without a fight.

Labels: communication, leadership, management, vision

For many leaders, empowering employees can be a personal challenge. For one thing, the thought of sharing our power might mean confronting some of our personal insecurities. What's more, empowerment requires that we trust workers to fulfill their commitments -- and that can seem risky. We must work hard at being empowering, lest we become micromanagers.

Not surprisingly, our bosses face this same challenge. And that increases the odds that you work for a micromanager.

If you work for a micromanager, you know the drawbacks. Micromanagers continually interrupt you, rearrange your priorities and deadlines, hand off their crises to you, and take credit for your good ideas? If that's not enough, they consume your time with countless, endless meetings and overburden you by commissioning a stream of pointless reports.

Some leaders micromanage because they can -- their positions give them the authority to boss people around and they intend to use it. Other micromanagers fear falling short in terms of their own performances. She won’t get this done, we’ll miss the deadline, and that will make me look bad. That fear prevents micromanagers from trusting their employees; consequently, they attempt to establish complete control.

As long as you work for a micromanaging boss, you will struggle in your leadership role. Through their actions, micromanagers broadcast their lack of trust. Your employees will sense your micromanaging boss's doubts and wonder whether you are worthy of their trust. Therefore, if you work for a micromanager, you need to confront the problem directly.

I suggest that you start by asking your boss the following:

"Am I fulfilling your expectations as a leader? If not, please tell me how to improve. Otherwise, when you meddle in my actions, countermand my decisions, or outright do my job for me, I have to conclude that you distrust my judgment."

If your performance does need improving, this kind of candid conversation with your supervisor can help you grow as a leader. On the other hand, drawing attention to micromanagement behavior could actually help your boss recognize a personal leadership weakness. You might point out the obvious:

"You're probably unaware of how your behavior causes my employees to wonder if I have any real authority. That's why they often go around me to you."

But some people micromanage consciously and deliberately; many micromanagers try hard to intimidate. To them, you need to be blunt:

"You hold me accountable for getting things done. But by constantly overriding my authority, you’re making it impossible for me to succeed."

By challenging micromanagement behavior you're telling your boss that you welcome constructive feedback and are eager to work hard toward improving, but that you are unwilling to endure unwarranted bullying and second-guessing.

Enough is Enough

If your micromanaging boss is unreceptive, or proves unable or unwilling to change, you should consider changing bosses. Unchecked, micromanagement limits your opportunities to grow. Your micromanager will continue to ignore you, abstain from teaching you new skills, withhold company news from you, exclude you from decision making, and selfishly hold back the most demanding assignments. Your employees might see you as weak or untrustworthy. You will expect less from yourself. Your performance will reflect your boss’s low expectations. And, lo and behold, another self-fulfilling prophecy will come true.

If your core personal values include principles like trust, respect, and helping individuals grow then living by the values you profess requires standing up to micromanagement.

Labels: employees, leadership, management, trust, values

Health officials are busy warning anxious citizens about the spread of the H1N1 virus, better known as the swine flu. For their part, organizations are advising their employees on how to keep their illnesses to themselves. Internal emails describe everything from how to properly cough in public (seems it's better to cough into the crook of your arm than into your hand) to how soon to return to work after experiencing the flu (wait at least until the fever subsides).

If only companies were as concerned about the contagiousness of their leaders' emotions.

Even without speaking, leaders can communicate their moods to everyone around them. And, as researchers Howard Friedman and Ronald Riggio established, emotionally expressive people can nonverbally transmit their moods onto others almost immediately.

Friedman and Riggio studied three-person groups comprised of one highly expressive subject and two unexpressive participants. Subjects in each group sat facing away from each other while completing a mood questionnaire. Participants then turned and faced their fellow group members for two minutes, during which time they could look at each other but not speak. Finally, participants filled out another mood survey.

As the researchers had expected, the moods of the unexpressive subjects tended to change to match the mood of the highly expressive participants. For example, an angry, highly expressive subject could make two happy, unexpressive people irate. In two minutes or less! All without saying a word.

As Friedman and Riggio point out, nonverbally expressive individuals broadcast their feelings through their body language, and those around them cannot help but notice the signals. Negative emotions are especially easy to transmit nonverbally, because people are naturally receptive to warnings about anxiety, fear, and anger.

Emotions, like a flu virus, are contagious. If you're a leader, be aware that you might be silently infecting your employees with your nonverbal messages. Try spreading some positive messages instead.

According to research by Gallup, employees tend to receive very little praise from their supervisors. In fact, less than a third of U.S. workers would strongly agree that a boss has praised their work in the past week. Why are leaders so stingy with the compliments? One excuse I frequently hear from managers is that recognizing employees for doing a good job is an ongoing burden.

Labels: employees, leadership, management, praise, recognition

"Our system was failing to meet its most basic responsibility: the development of productive and well-disciplined individuals." Dick Grote, Discipline Without Punishment

In the early 1970s, a troublesome mystery befuddled the executives of Frito-Lay. Abruptly one day, complaint letters from outraged customers began arriving at the company's headquarters. Angry writers reported the same upsetting experience: each had been shocked to discover, on a Frito-Lay potato chip, an obscene message written in felt-tip pen.

Having traced the source of the offensive chips to a particular plant, management dispatched training and development manager Dick Grote to the facility with instructions to track down the culprit responsible for the vulgar messages. What Grote found instead was a workplace culture that bred disobedience.

Grote learned that plant managers had fired fifty-eight of the factory's 210 employees for disciplinary reasons in the prior nine months. Supervisors were misusing progressive discipline -- verbal and written warnings, unpaid suspensions, and terminations -- as a way to rid the plant of unwanted workers. The excessive firings resulted in dismal morale and led disgruntled employees to sabotage the company's products.

The sheer volume of disciplinary actions at the plant allowed Grote to spot what is less obvious in most organizations; that is, that traditional progressive-discipline methods are highly ineffective.

In his book, Discipline Without Punishment, Grote writes, "The problem wasn't the way we were administering the system. The problem was the system itself." Like discipline systems at most companies, Frito-Lay's offered employees no way to redeem themselves. Says Grote, "Virtually every employee who received a verbal warning received a written warning; almost everyone who reached the point of a disciplinary suspension was fired not long after." So he decided to change the system.

While keeping the progressive characteristic of the system, Grote eliminated punishment and replaced it with personal responsibility and decision-making. Warnings and reprimands became reminders -- coaching sessions in which employees are asked to take responsibility for their actions and commit to changing their undesirable behaviors. Unpaid suspensions became paid leaves during which employees can reflect on the seriousness of the problem -- without the resentment and financial hardships caused by withholding pay.

Over the next two years, the number of terminations resulting from disciplinary actions at the plant fell from 58 to two. Thousands of organizations have since followed Frito-Lay's approach with staggering results. In addition to firing fewer employees, these companies are also experiencing lower voluntary turnover, reductions in sick-leave usage, and drops in worker grievances.

"The basic premise of the traditional discipline system is that crime must be followed by punishment," writes Grote. With that in mind, too many organizations treat all of their employees like criminals.

So, is it time to overhaul your disciplinary system?

Labels: discipline, employees, leadership, management

 Management Training Says:
Monday, October 05, 2009 11:39:00 AM

Maynard Leigh provide Management Training and Leadership Training via Personal Development Courses, Professional Development Courses and Management Training courses in London and across the UK.

What do you think? Post a Comment