Get Into The Habit Of Training Your Leaders
In his book, The 8th Habit, Stephen Covey tells of his experiences with two organizations with misaligned reward systems. Each company stressed the importance of teamwork to their employees, but both had reward systems that favored individual accomplishments. Sell the most, win a fantastic trip. "Why," asked one chief executive, "won't they cooperate?" Only after Covey pointed out the folly of their systems did teamwork flourish.Were these CEOs bad managers? Or, more specifically, were they incompetent? Indeed, as Covey points out in his book, competency was an issue:
They had the character, even an abundance mentality; they just didn't have the mind-set or skill-set to create aligned compensation systems; they didn't have complete information systems...But they grasped the concept right away. Again, their problem wasn't character; their problem was competency. They had never learned the skill, and they'd been caught in a scarcity minded, traditional, duplicitous system that would remain duplicitous until they acquired the skills.Leadership incompetence plagues countless organizations. People within companies tend to advance beyond their competence levels, living out the familiar Peter Principle introduced by sociologist Laurence Johnston Peter. It's especially true with leaders. Companies promote people into leadership because of their skills in other areas. You're a good salesperson, so we're making you the sales manager. But then those companies fail to teach the new manager the leadership skills necessary to succeed.
Had the leaders in Covey's examples not benefited from his outsider perspective, it's likely both would still be struggling with how to build teamwork. Therefore, training your leaders is critically important.
Does training your leaders take time? Yes. Does it cost money? Of course it does. Can it wait until next quarter, when your numbers might look a little better? That's your call; but don't count on better results later unless you train your leaders now.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
How Good Is Your Information?
The Toronto Star's Sharon Burnside has an interesting column about a quote widely, but falsely, attributed to Albert Einstein. In the remark, Einstein supposedly laments over lacking the mental fortitude to land his ideal job: "As a young man, my fondest dream was to become a geographer. However, while working in the Customs Office, I thought deeply about the matter and concluded that it was far too difficult a subject. With some reluctance, I then turned to physics as an alternative."
Thanks to Professor Jerry Dobson of the University of Kansas, we now know that the quote is pure fabrication. As it turns out, Duane Marble, a geography professor at New York State University, drafted and displayed the fictional statement over twenty years ago to poke fun at the college's physicists. Two decades later, and long after Marble admitted the practical joke to Dobson, many still attribute the remark to Einstein.
The story reminds me of the frustrations expressed by leaders who struggle with rampant misinformation in their organizations. For example, one manager relayed the story of how a maintenance employee confronted her on an icy morning last winter, demanding to know why she had imposed a purchasing freeze on rock salt. "Who would start that rumor?" she wondered. "And why would anyone believe that I would do such a thing?"
Perhaps a simple mistake results in the dissemination of wrong information. Consider this retraction in the Dallas Morning News a year ago: "Norma Adams-Wade's June 15 column incorrectly called Mary Ann Thompson-Frenk a socialist. She is a socialite." Oops! Sorry, Mary Ann. Or maybe people just don't take time to check the facts. When Theodore Levitt died last month, the Associate Press credited the former editor of the Harvard Business Review with coining the term "globalization." As a result, obituaries around the country identified the word as Levitt's claim to fame. Since then, AP has clarified that Levitt "helped to popularize the term in a 1983 article for the publication, but he did not coin it."
Here's my point: The information your employees have is only as good as the information you give them. Give them the wrong information, and they'll spread it. Give them confusing information, and they'll likely misinterpret your message. Fail to give them any information, and they'll make it up, or get it from someone else. One more reason why you must Master Both Listening and Speaking.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Thanks to Professor Jerry Dobson of the University of Kansas, we now know that the quote is pure fabrication. As it turns out, Duane Marble, a geography professor at New York State University, drafted and displayed the fictional statement over twenty years ago to poke fun at the college's physicists. Two decades later, and long after Marble admitted the practical joke to Dobson, many still attribute the remark to Einstein.
The story reminds me of the frustrations expressed by leaders who struggle with rampant misinformation in their organizations. For example, one manager relayed the story of how a maintenance employee confronted her on an icy morning last winter, demanding to know why she had imposed a purchasing freeze on rock salt. "Who would start that rumor?" she wondered. "And why would anyone believe that I would do such a thing?"
Perhaps a simple mistake results in the dissemination of wrong information. Consider this retraction in the Dallas Morning News a year ago: "Norma Adams-Wade's June 15 column incorrectly called Mary Ann Thompson-Frenk a socialist. She is a socialite." Oops! Sorry, Mary Ann. Or maybe people just don't take time to check the facts. When Theodore Levitt died last month, the Associate Press credited the former editor of the Harvard Business Review with coining the term "globalization." As a result, obituaries around the country identified the word as Levitt's claim to fame. Since then, AP has clarified that Levitt "helped to popularize the term in a 1983 article for the publication, but he did not coin it."
Here's my point: The information your employees have is only as good as the information you give them. Give them the wrong information, and they'll spread it. Give them confusing information, and they'll likely misinterpret your message. Fail to give them any information, and they'll make it up, or get it from someone else. One more reason why you must Master Both Listening and Speaking.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Keep Your Eye On The Ball
This week, I'm serving as a volunteer marshal at the LPGA tournament going on at my home golf course. My post this morning was the midway point of the tenth fairway, on the left side, where I watched tee shots land and showed some of the world's best golfers where to find their wayward balls.
Across the fairway was John, a fellow marshal whom I met for the first time today. There's out-of-bounds on John's side of the fairway, and heavy woods just beyond. Early in our shift, in between groups of golfers, when there were no balls in flight and spectators were scarce, I noticed John disappearing into the woods. He must have a weak bladder, I thought, assuming he was visiting the woods to relieve himself. I was a little bit disappointed that John would use the woods, rather than walk the hundred yards to the nearest rest area. I formed an instant opinion that John was lazy.
Then, as John returned from one of his visits into the trees, I saw that he was carrying several golf balls. So that's what he's doing, I thought; he's scavenging for golf balls. My opinion of John changed, and not for the better. A cheapskate he was, trying to save a few bucks by scurrying into the woods to recover the lost golf balls of our club's hapless slicers.
As the morning went on, the crowd grew larger. More spectators were walking outside the ropes. At one point, I looked over in time to see John speaking to a young girl; she was only four or five, and she had been walking by John's post with her father. After talking to her for a moment, John handed her a golf ball. She and her dad walked away, she with a big smile on her face.
This went on for the rest of the morning: John giving away every one of his found golf balls to young children, and the delighted recipients walking away with a new treasure. I realized how unfair I had been in my instantly formed opinions of John.
As leaders, it's easy for us to make hasty judgments about our employees. They don't take initiative because they're lazy. Money is their sole motivation. But, as John reminded me this morning, only when we observe behavior over time can we truly understand what inspires people.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Across the fairway was John, a fellow marshal whom I met for the first time today. There's out-of-bounds on John's side of the fairway, and heavy woods just beyond. Early in our shift, in between groups of golfers, when there were no balls in flight and spectators were scarce, I noticed John disappearing into the woods. He must have a weak bladder, I thought, assuming he was visiting the woods to relieve himself. I was a little bit disappointed that John would use the woods, rather than walk the hundred yards to the nearest rest area. I formed an instant opinion that John was lazy.
Then, as John returned from one of his visits into the trees, I saw that he was carrying several golf balls. So that's what he's doing, I thought; he's scavenging for golf balls. My opinion of John changed, and not for the better. A cheapskate he was, trying to save a few bucks by scurrying into the woods to recover the lost golf balls of our club's hapless slicers.
As the morning went on, the crowd grew larger. More spectators were walking outside the ropes. At one point, I looked over in time to see John speaking to a young girl; she was only four or five, and she had been walking by John's post with her father. After talking to her for a moment, John handed her a golf ball. She and her dad walked away, she with a big smile on her face.
This went on for the rest of the morning: John giving away every one of his found golf balls to young children, and the delighted recipients walking away with a new treasure. I realized how unfair I had been in my instantly formed opinions of John.
As leaders, it's easy for us to make hasty judgments about our employees. They don't take initiative because they're lazy. Money is their sole motivation. But, as John reminded me this morning, only when we observe behavior over time can we truly understand what inspires people.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Finally, Some Straight Talk
Intel is reducing its manager ranks by about 1,000 people worldwide. In making the announcement, Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said it plainly: "This action is designed to both reduce costs and improve communications and decision making across the company." No euphemisms. Just the truth--we're saving money and cutting out some fat. I'm sure Intel employees appreciate the honesty. Yours will, too.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Euphemisms, Part II
I have written before about the distasteful penchant of business leaders to rely on euphemisms when delivering unpleasant news. It's a practice especially prevalent among companies announcing job reductions. Instead of saying that they're firing people, company spokespeople prefer buzz-wordy phrases, such as, "We're jettisoning surplus human capital and shifting the paradigm of our infrastructure." I've noticed in the latest wave of job-cut announcements, companies are now using similarly evasive language to explain the reasons behind their layoffs.
In defending his company's rationale for eliminating the jobs of 7,500 people, Allianz AG chief executive Michael Diekmann said the insurer had experienced a "structural shortfall" that prevented it from continuing to support "highly complex redundancies." Protesting Allianz employees are questioning the structural shortfall; after all, in 2005, Allianz recorded its highest net income ever.
Microsoft Corp. issued a statement explaining why it is cutting 148 sales positions. According to the company, the cuts will allow Microsoft to "better align a small subset of field and headquarters positions more closely with the needs of our enterprise customers and partners." Forgive me for being in the subset of those who don't know what an enterprise customer is, much less, how reducing salespeople better serves the needs of enterprise customers.
Symantec said it plans to reduce its investment in security appliances and focus attention on its network and gateway security business. In the process, the company will abolish eighty jobs. "This change in investment strategy will allow us to develop best-of-breed solutions that meet the complex needs of today's businesses." Best-of-breed? Those eighty people tossed out are part of the human breed, by the way. Whom did they keep--the pick of the litter?
When Sun Microsystems announced plans to cut up to 13 percent of its workforce, CEO Jonathan Schwartz had this to say: "We are reinventing our business model on a far simpler base, and focusing our energies on the automation, energy efficiency, and network innovation at the heart of our technology leadership." Do you want simpler? Do you want efficiency? Why don't you just say you're cutting 800 jobs to increase profits?
Even the Presbyterian Church, which recently disclosed that it is eliminating seventy-five employees at its Louisville headquarters, tried to put a positive spin on the act by saying the displaced workers are "looking for new ways to serve God." Good heavens!
Are organizations so ashamed of their business decisions that they need to use ambiguous language? Will announcing layoffs result in a lower stock price, or smaller contributions in the offering plate? Maybe, but one thing is certain: when leaders mask unpleasant messages in jargon, they squander their credibility.
Why do business leaders use jargon when sharing bad news? Because experts tell us to hide our emotions, and jargon allows us to remove all trace of emotion from our messages. And it's easier to hide the emotional impact of participating in the displacement of hundreds of workers when you translate "laying off people" into "reinventing our business model." But when relaying information to employees, it is critical for leaders to communicate to their listeners on an emotional level. The lack of emotional communication is the primary reason jargon is so ineffective as a source of inspiration.
Communication is easiest when you just say what you mean.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
In defending his company's rationale for eliminating the jobs of 7,500 people, Allianz AG chief executive Michael Diekmann said the insurer had experienced a "structural shortfall" that prevented it from continuing to support "highly complex redundancies." Protesting Allianz employees are questioning the structural shortfall; after all, in 2005, Allianz recorded its highest net income ever.
Microsoft Corp. issued a statement explaining why it is cutting 148 sales positions. According to the company, the cuts will allow Microsoft to "better align a small subset of field and headquarters positions more closely with the needs of our enterprise customers and partners." Forgive me for being in the subset of those who don't know what an enterprise customer is, much less, how reducing salespeople better serves the needs of enterprise customers.
Symantec said it plans to reduce its investment in security appliances and focus attention on its network and gateway security business. In the process, the company will abolish eighty jobs. "This change in investment strategy will allow us to develop best-of-breed solutions that meet the complex needs of today's businesses." Best-of-breed? Those eighty people tossed out are part of the human breed, by the way. Whom did they keep--the pick of the litter?
When Sun Microsystems announced plans to cut up to 13 percent of its workforce, CEO Jonathan Schwartz had this to say: "We are reinventing our business model on a far simpler base, and focusing our energies on the automation, energy efficiency, and network innovation at the heart of our technology leadership." Do you want simpler? Do you want efficiency? Why don't you just say you're cutting 800 jobs to increase profits?
Even the Presbyterian Church, which recently disclosed that it is eliminating seventy-five employees at its Louisville headquarters, tried to put a positive spin on the act by saying the displaced workers are "looking for new ways to serve God." Good heavens!
Are organizations so ashamed of their business decisions that they need to use ambiguous language? Will announcing layoffs result in a lower stock price, or smaller contributions in the offering plate? Maybe, but one thing is certain: when leaders mask unpleasant messages in jargon, they squander their credibility.
Why do business leaders use jargon when sharing bad news? Because experts tell us to hide our emotions, and jargon allows us to remove all trace of emotion from our messages. And it's easier to hide the emotional impact of participating in the displacement of hundreds of workers when you translate "laying off people" into "reinventing our business model." But when relaying information to employees, it is critical for leaders to communicate to their listeners on an emotional level. The lack of emotional communication is the primary reason jargon is so ineffective as a source of inspiration.
Communication is easiest when you just say what you mean.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
What a Tangled Web...
Want to get even with a negative boss? Mahlon Hector did. On his final day of work at a Marks & Spencer store in Leicester, England, he sent a live tarantula to his soon-to-be former manager. By pleading guilty to conveying a threat, Hector avoided jail time for his frightening "practical joke."
While most employees don't take such drastic steps, abused workers are apt to reciprocate their manager's hostility. In an article for the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers Kelly Zellars, Bennett Tepper, and Michelle Duffy point out that negative management has serious implications for organizations. But rather than directing their revenge at their supervisor--by, say, sending a scary spider in the post--employees respond by withholding actions that benefit the organization.
In their research, the authors found that abused employees retaliate by refusing to display what academics call organizational citizenship behavior. Instead, abused workers seek justice by denying assistance to coworkers, complaining about petty problems, being uncivil to fellow employees, and criticizing the organization in public. Such conduct is damaging to the company, but rarely punishable; therefore, employees consider the behavior a safe way to avenge negative management.
If you work in an organization with frequent changes, intense competition, or unrealistic goals, you may find yourself succumbing to the frustration all these things cause by exhibiting some negative manager traits. And, on rare occasions, you may actually succeed in bullying people to up their level of performance to a certain degree. But in the end, your employees will settle the score by withholding their best efforts.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
While most employees don't take such drastic steps, abused workers are apt to reciprocate their manager's hostility. In an article for the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers Kelly Zellars, Bennett Tepper, and Michelle Duffy point out that negative management has serious implications for organizations. But rather than directing their revenge at their supervisor--by, say, sending a scary spider in the post--employees respond by withholding actions that benefit the organization.
In their research, the authors found that abused employees retaliate by refusing to display what academics call organizational citizenship behavior. Instead, abused workers seek justice by denying assistance to coworkers, complaining about petty problems, being uncivil to fellow employees, and criticizing the organization in public. Such conduct is damaging to the company, but rarely punishable; therefore, employees consider the behavior a safe way to avenge negative management.
If you work in an organization with frequent changes, intense competition, or unrealistic goals, you may find yourself succumbing to the frustration all these things cause by exhibiting some negative manager traits. And, on rare occasions, you may actually succeed in bullying people to up their level of performance to a certain degree. But in the end, your employees will settle the score by withholding their best efforts.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Growing Out of Creativity
Sir Ken Robinson, author of Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative, gave a thought-provoking and highly entertaining lecture on creativity at the TED 2006 Conference in February. According to Robinson, "We don't grow into creativity; we grow out of it. Or rather we get educated out of it." He's a believer in reinventing worldwide education systems that cultivate creativity, rather than discourage it. I hope you will invest twenty minutes to watch the video of his talk.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Why Not a GM/Ford Merger Instead?
Can a General Motors-Renault-Nissan alliance restore the beleaguered U.S. automaker to profitability? Kirk Kerkorian, GM's largest shareholder, thinks it's an idea worth exploring. Kerkorian proposed the idea to GM chief Richard Wagoner last week, and both parties have promised to mull it over. But if GM were looking for a life-giving merger, its board would do better looking across town, rather than across the pond.
Merging corporate cultures is always difficult. But history suggests it's especially hard to combine automotive organizations from different countries. A good example is the 1998 partnership of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler Corp. The merger failed to produce many anticipated synergies and sent workers on both sides of the Atlantic into a "deep valley of disappointment and misunderstanding," according to DaimlerChrysler chair Dieter Zetsche. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the man affectionately called Dr. Z in the company's new television advertising, said, "It is pretty tough getting an organization to go in a direction it doesn't want to go in voluntarily." GM should already understand that: the company recently paid $2 billion to end its failed five-year partnership with Italy's Fiat.
If Kerkorian simply hopes to give GM's stock a temporary price nudge, or if he is looking for yet another way to annoy his nemesis Wagoner, his proposal might work. But the challenge of blending international corporate cultures ensures failure. He might as well suggest a merger of Motor City rivals.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Merging corporate cultures is always difficult. But history suggests it's especially hard to combine automotive organizations from different countries. A good example is the 1998 partnership of Daimler-Benz and Chrysler Corp. The merger failed to produce many anticipated synergies and sent workers on both sides of the Atlantic into a "deep valley of disappointment and misunderstanding," according to DaimlerChrysler chair Dieter Zetsche. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the man affectionately called Dr. Z in the company's new television advertising, said, "It is pretty tough getting an organization to go in a direction it doesn't want to go in voluntarily." GM should already understand that: the company recently paid $2 billion to end its failed five-year partnership with Italy's Fiat.
If Kerkorian simply hopes to give GM's stock a temporary price nudge, or if he is looking for yet another way to annoy his nemesis Wagoner, his proposal might work. But the challenge of blending international corporate cultures ensures failure. He might as well suggest a merger of Motor City rivals.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Author George Brymer's comments about the leaders who get it, and those who never will.
