The Concorde Effect
Beginning in the 1960s, the French and British governments jointly financed the development of a supersonic airplane capable of shuttling passengers between Europe and America at breakneck speeds. But even before the first Concorde was fully assembled, analysts realized that the program would be a financial loser. Despite overwhelming evidence that they would never recoup their financial outlays, both governments persisted in pouring billions of dollars into the project. And they continued to subsidize the Concorde's unprofitable operation for nearly three decades until safety issues caused its demise. What was their reasoning for not cutting their losses along the way? They believed that they had invested too much money in the program to quit.
Today, all the French and British governments have to show for their investment is an unflattering economic theory named for their costly doggedness: the Concorde Effect. Also known as the sunk-cost fallacy, the Concorde Effect refers to the human tendency to futilely persevere with an enterprise once we've invested money, time, or effort.
Organizations also exhibit the Concorde Effect by clinging to their outdated methods and practices. Managers are often quick to dismiss suggested new approaches, a problem manifested in the age-old corporate proclamation, "This is the way we've always done it." Policy makers -- especially those entrenched at the top of a bureaucracy -- are often the people who established the very procedure being challenged. For that reason, their emotional investment in the practice is too great to let it go.
To lead effectively, you must recognize when it's time to cut and run, whether that means getting rid of unprofitable business lines or changing the way work gets done. Unless, that is, you have billions of dollars to waste.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Today, all the French and British governments have to show for their investment is an unflattering economic theory named for their costly doggedness: the Concorde Effect. Also known as the sunk-cost fallacy, the Concorde Effect refers to the human tendency to futilely persevere with an enterprise once we've invested money, time, or effort.
Organizations also exhibit the Concorde Effect by clinging to their outdated methods and practices. Managers are often quick to dismiss suggested new approaches, a problem manifested in the age-old corporate proclamation, "This is the way we've always done it." Policy makers -- especially those entrenched at the top of a bureaucracy -- are often the people who established the very procedure being challenged. For that reason, their emotional investment in the practice is too great to let it go.
To lead effectively, you must recognize when it's time to cut and run, whether that means getting rid of unprofitable business lines or changing the way work gets done. Unless, that is, you have billions of dollars to waste.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Tattletales
Do you have a tattletale on your staff? I'm not referring to those courageous whistleblowers who turn in embezzlers or expose harassment. I am talking about the sticklers who can't wait to rat out a coworker for arriving ten minutes late, or for extending a lunch hour by a few moments. Tattletales want you to know about every shortcut a teammate took, each personal phone call a colleague made, and how many days an associate's lunch was left stinking up the department refrigerator. If you're like most managers, you find the snitcher's behavior unhelpful at best -- and annoying at worst.In The Art of Ethics, Elizabeth McGrath describes the stages we go through on our way to ethical maturity. Our first ethical lessons involve obedience, she says. Good boys and girls obey their parents; bad kids disobey. While in this stage we learn to view the world in we're-right-and-they're-wrong terms. But as we mature ethically, we experience the consequences of our independent decisions, and we eventually stop looking at actions as right or wrong and begin seeing outcomes as good or bad. Therefore, becoming ethically mature requires leaving the obedience stage behind us.
Unfortunately, some people never advance beyond the point of deferring to someone else's view of right and wrong. Those workers who childishly tattle on colleagues who bend some rules are most likely stalled in the obedience stage. The reasons are probably deep-seated and best left to a trained therapist to resolve. But understanding your tattlers could help you lead them more effectively.
As a manager, I always sensed that my tattlers were seeking personal affirmation rather than trying to get other people in trouble. In other words, I felt snitchers were seeking assurance that they were indeed good boys and girls. Whenever an employee finked about something trivial, I tried to respond with, "I'm glad I can count on you to always follow the rules." It seemed to be the response they needed, and it afforded them a respite from the urge to turn in their friends.
Next time a tattler informs you of an inconsequential breach of the rules, try thanking them for being a "good" corporate citizen.
Labels: employees, leadership
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usHumble Pie
"I'm here on television saying I screwed up." Barak Obama
When news broke that Tom Daschle had failed to pay nearly $140,000 in back taxes, President Obama initially stood by his choice for Health and Human Services secretary. But Daschle was the President's second Cabinet nominee to be identified as a tax dodger, and political pundits everywhere began criticizing the appointment. After Daschle withdrew his name from consideration, the President admitted to reporters that he "screwed up" by defending Daschle when his tax problems were first discovered.
There's a lesson here for leaders who, like the President, are new to their current roles. Workshop participants often ask me for tips on earning the respect of a new staff. As it turns out, exhibiting humility is a good first step. Too many new managers believe that it's better to appear right than to be right. So rather than acknowledge their mistakes, they arrogantly discount them. But as the President demonstrated, the willingness to acknowledge an error can turn a leadership misstep into a credibility boost.
Leadership requires the courage to admit your blunders. By owning up to a mistake, you'll show workers that you're willing to risk your pride in order to do the right thing.
When news broke that Tom Daschle had failed to pay nearly $140,000 in back taxes, President Obama initially stood by his choice for Health and Human Services secretary. But Daschle was the President's second Cabinet nominee to be identified as a tax dodger, and political pundits everywhere began criticizing the appointment. After Daschle withdrew his name from consideration, the President admitted to reporters that he "screwed up" by defending Daschle when his tax problems were first discovered.
There's a lesson here for leaders who, like the President, are new to their current roles. Workshop participants often ask me for tips on earning the respect of a new staff. As it turns out, exhibiting humility is a good first step. Too many new managers believe that it's better to appear right than to be right. So rather than acknowledge their mistakes, they arrogantly discount them. But as the President demonstrated, the willingness to acknowledge an error can turn a leadership misstep into a credibility boost.
Leadership requires the courage to admit your blunders. By owning up to a mistake, you'll show workers that you're willing to risk your pride in order to do the right thing.
Labels: credibility, integrity, leadership
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Author George Brymer's comments about the leaders who get it, and those who never will.
