Landing With Dignity
By now you've undoubtedly heard about Steven Slater's bad day at work. The Jet Blue flight attendant was working a capacity-filled flight on the Pittsburgh to New York route recently. A passenger, while attempting to squeeze a suitcase into an overhead compartment, supposedly banged Slater in the head with it. Then she added insult to injury, literally: in lieu of an apology, she told him off.
Once the plane landed in New York, a fed-up Slater responded to the woman with his own disparaging remarks – via the craft's public address system. He then deployed the plane's emergency evacuation chute and, with his luggage in hand, slid into unemployment and the public spotlight. He was later arrested for his theatrics.
While conflicting accounts of the events continue to surface, one thing is certain: Slater picked a dramatic way to quit his job. Since then, Slater has been heralded as a hero by frustrated working stiffs who envy his gumption. He recently hired a well-known publicist to help him capitalize on his newfound fame, and there is talk of a reality television show.
But is Slater really a hero? Not when you consider how he endangered his co-workers on the tarmac by unexpectedly deploying the inflatable slide. Nor when you factor in the tens of thousands of dollars Jet Blue had to pay to replace the chute. And certainly not when you think about the copycats in companies everywhere who are dreaming up new flamboyant – and costly – ways to resign.
No, Slater is not a hero for "pulling the chute" on his career. He's just a disgruntled employee who caved under pressure and blamed the world for his frustration.
As it turns out, you can find heroes at an airport near you. They are the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are returning home this month after completing combat missions in Iraq. But, unlike Slater, these heroes are not holding news conferences or securing press agents. They're coming home without fanfare to a public that seems more fascinated by the exploits of a spoiled flight attendant than with the sacrifices of these brave soldiers. And shame on us for that.
Once the plane landed in New York, a fed-up Slater responded to the woman with his own disparaging remarks – via the craft's public address system. He then deployed the plane's emergency evacuation chute and, with his luggage in hand, slid into unemployment and the public spotlight. He was later arrested for his theatrics.
While conflicting accounts of the events continue to surface, one thing is certain: Slater picked a dramatic way to quit his job. Since then, Slater has been heralded as a hero by frustrated working stiffs who envy his gumption. He recently hired a well-known publicist to help him capitalize on his newfound fame, and there is talk of a reality television show.
But is Slater really a hero? Not when you consider how he endangered his co-workers on the tarmac by unexpectedly deploying the inflatable slide. Nor when you factor in the tens of thousands of dollars Jet Blue had to pay to replace the chute. And certainly not when you think about the copycats in companies everywhere who are dreaming up new flamboyant – and costly – ways to resign. No, Slater is not a hero for "pulling the chute" on his career. He's just a disgruntled employee who caved under pressure and blamed the world for his frustration.
As it turns out, you can find heroes at an airport near you. They are the men and women of the U.S. armed forces who are returning home this month after completing combat missions in Iraq. But, unlike Slater, these heroes are not holding news conferences or securing press agents. They're coming home without fanfare to a public that seems more fascinated by the exploits of a spoiled flight attendant than with the sacrifices of these brave soldiers. And shame on us for that.
Labels: leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usImperfect Leadership
On the following day, after morning news programs reported the incident, a growing number of disconcerted Americans, feeling deprived of something special in their own sense, waited to see if a leader would step forward to make things right. That person, as it turns out, would have been Bud Selig. As Major League Baseball commissioner, Selig alone possesses the power to overturn rulings on the field.
Selig said no.
In the greater scheme of things, of course, this was just a baseball game. And while perfect games are historically rare (only twenty in MLB's entire history), Galarraga's would have been the third this year. But to a nation increasingly weary from stories about corporate corruption, government bailouts, and oil spills, Selig's refusal to overrule Joyce's call was another leadership disappointment in a long list of recent ones.
After all, if baseball's top boss won't correct a blatant injustice in America's favorite pastime, what chance do we have of finding someone who will restore our faith in business leaders anytime soon?
While we should all be inspired by the graciousness both Galarraga and Joyce displayed following the episode, there is still a lingering letdown: another leader struck out in the moment of truth.
Labels: business, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
As leaders we need to be inspired by Gallaraga's humility and the courage Joyce displayed on the day following the game- and not let ourselves get caught up on Selig's lack of "Vital Integrity"!
What do you think? Post a Comment
More Corporate Shenanigans
Corporate governance has taken it on the chin in the past few days. Over the past week:
· The U.S. Justice Department and the Securities Exchange Commission announced an investigation of Hewlett-Packard for allegedly bribing foreign officials to secure a lucrative computer equipment contract in Russia. German and Russian prosecutors are already investigating the matter, which is thought to include bribes totally $10.9 million.
· Private-equity firm Quadrangle Group accused its co-founder Steve Rattner of complicity in a kickback scheme aimed at winning business from New York State's pension fund. Rattner, the Obama administration's former car czar, is suspected of paying millions of dollars in bribes to obtain investment business from the pension fund.
· The SEC filed charges against Goldman Sachs and one of its vice presidents for supposedly falsifying and omitting information about an investment vehicle the company was peddling. The suit accuses the Wall Street bank of selling customers a subprime-mortgage investment, knowing that it would lose value, in order to reap fee income.
Agree or disagree: At the risk of causing Ronald Reagan to roll over in his grave, the government needs to impose greater oversight on big business. I'd like to know your thoughts.
Labels: business, credibility, ethics, integrity, trust, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Take it from someone in a country with much less (or at least less effective) business regulation. It's not the end of the world but businesses large and small do overstep many moral, if not legal, boundaries. I agree with you.
What do you think? Post a Comment
A "Sorry" Excuse for Leadership
Last week, two former top-ranking Citigroup officials apologized on Capitol Hill for taking the banking giant to the brink of extinction. Former CEO Charles Prince and ex-board member Robert Rubin offered repentance to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.
Prince ran the company from 2003 through 2007. During much of his watch, Citigroup ran up billions of dollars in losses, eventually causing the U.S. government to spend $45 billion to prevent its collapse. "I'm sorry," said Prince, "that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us."
For his part, Rubin offered regrets but refused to accept responsibility for the day-to-day operations that created the Citigroup debacle. Like Prince, he indicated that the entire banking industry shared the blame, saying that nearly everyone "missed the powerful combination of forces at work and the serious possibility of a massive crisis."
But committee chair Phil Angelides wasn't willing to let the two off the hook so easily. As Angelides put it, "You were either pulling the levers or asleep at the switch."
Thanks for the apology, guys. I hope you're not offended if your former employees, customers, and stockholders don't forgive you immediately.
Prince ran the company from 2003 through 2007. During much of his watch, Citigroup ran up billions of dollars in losses, eventually causing the U.S. government to spend $45 billion to prevent its collapse. "I'm sorry," said Prince, "that our management team, starting with me, like so many others, could not see the unprecedented market collapse that lay before us."
For his part, Rubin offered regrets but refused to accept responsibility for the day-to-day operations that created the Citigroup debacle. Like Prince, he indicated that the entire banking industry shared the blame, saying that nearly everyone "missed the powerful combination of forces at work and the serious possibility of a massive crisis."
One might be inclined to admire these leaders for their feeble attempt at falling on their swords. But remember: we're talking about Citigroup, an institution that has repeatedly been embroiled in misbehavior. As the Wall Street Journal said in August 2008, shortly after Prince's reign, "Name nearly any scandal, incompetence or hiccup suffered by the financial industry in the past decade or so, and the chances are Citigroup will have been at its forefront." And Prince and Rubin are two of the leaders who oversaw those failures.
Labels: business, credibility, ethics, integrity, leadership, trust, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usIs Your Boss a Micromanager?
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
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usLeonard Abess
Leonard Abess likes to read annual reports. As the head of City National Bank in Miami, he especially likes to study the annual reports of other banks. He always pays particular attention to the opening letter written by the corporation's CEO. It struck Abess as backward that CEOs begin the final paragraphs of their letters with the phrase, "And last but not least, we wish to thank our loyal employees…" Why, he wondered, are the employees the last to be mentioned? In his letters, he always likes to acknowledge his employees first.
Last fall, Abess sold his majority stake in City National. In a business environment in which many corporate leaders have demonstrated mindboggling personal greed, he did something remarkable. He gave $60 million of his proceeds to 471 current and former employees. It was, he said, something he'd been planning to do for more than 20 years.
When deciding how to allocate the money, Abess created an undisclosed formula based on longevity. Recognizing that the highest ranking -- and thus, highest paid -- employees had the shortest tenure, Abess gave the largest amounts to those who had been with City National the longest. As a result, some long-term employees received bonuses equal to nine times their annual salaries.
At a time when the country has lost faith in the leaders of its major financial institutions, what Abess did is highly unusual. He wishes it wasn't. "I prefer to live in a world where this is ordinary," he has said.
Me too.
Last fall, Abess sold his majority stake in City National. In a business environment in which many corporate leaders have demonstrated mindboggling personal greed, he did something remarkable. He gave $60 million of his proceeds to 471 current and former employees. It was, he said, something he'd been planning to do for more than 20 years.
When deciding how to allocate the money, Abess created an undisclosed formula based on longevity. Recognizing that the highest ranking -- and thus, highest paid -- employees had the shortest tenure, Abess gave the largest amounts to those who had been with City National the longest. As a result, some long-term employees received bonuses equal to nine times their annual salaries.
At a time when the country has lost faith in the leaders of its major financial institutions, what Abess did is highly unusual. He wishes it wasn't. "I prefer to live in a world where this is ordinary," he has said.
Me too.
Labels: business, employees, integrity, leadership, management, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usNetApp: A Great Place to Work
Looking for a great place to work? Consider applying at the Mountain View, California headquarters of Google. Among the perks enjoyed by Google employees are onsite haircuts, free laundry facilities, workout and massage rooms, in-house childcare, and car washes. And then there's the free food. The campus has eleven cafeterias serving everything from gourmet meals to M&Ms. Legend has it that Google workers are never more than 150 feet away from free food. No wonder the company topped Fortune’s list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For in 2007 and 2008.
But there's a new number one company on the Fortune list this year: storage and data management company NetApp. Unlike Google, which got to the top largely by providing employees with lots of goodies, NetApp earned the number one spot because of its culture of trust. NetApp's leaders promote an atmosphere of openness and honesty, and they go out of their way to proactively share information with workers.
Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, whose Great Place to Work Institute has been compiling information on great workplaces since 1980, have been quoted as saying, "The most important factor in selecting companies for this list is what employees themselves have to say about their workplace." For their part, NetApp employees say they appreciate how easy it is to share ideas, get answers to questions, meet with senior leaders, and find opportunities to take responsibility. Funny, no one mentions wanting free M&Ms.
At number four on the 2009 list, Google is still clearly a great place to work. And Google's culture of fun, high energy, and innovation undoubtedly attracts as many people as the free chow does. But NetApp's elevation reveals how important trustworthy leadership is to workers in today's business environment. "Perks are nice, but employees are looking for something more basic," Levering and Moskowitz have noted. "They want to be told the truth, especially if the news is bad."
If you want employees to consider your company a great place to work, focus less on promoting financially oriented rewards and more on demonstrating the values that attracted them in the first place.
But there's a new number one company on the Fortune list this year: storage and data management company NetApp. Unlike Google, which got to the top largely by providing employees with lots of goodies, NetApp earned the number one spot because of its culture of trust. NetApp's leaders promote an atmosphere of openness and honesty, and they go out of their way to proactively share information with workers.
Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, whose Great Place to Work Institute has been compiling information on great workplaces since 1980, have been quoted as saying, "The most important factor in selecting companies for this list is what employees themselves have to say about their workplace." For their part, NetApp employees say they appreciate how easy it is to share ideas, get answers to questions, meet with senior leaders, and find opportunities to take responsibility. Funny, no one mentions wanting free M&Ms.
At number four on the 2009 list, Google is still clearly a great place to work. And Google's culture of fun, high energy, and innovation undoubtedly attracts as many people as the free chow does. But NetApp's elevation reveals how important trustworthy leadership is to workers in today's business environment. "Perks are nice, but employees are looking for something more basic," Levering and Moskowitz have noted. "They want to be told the truth, especially if the news is bad."
If you want employees to consider your company a great place to work, focus less on promoting financially oriented rewards and more on demonstrating the values that attracted them in the first place.
Labels: business, employees, integrity, leadership, management, trust, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usStanding Up or Standing By?
With the onslaught of high-profile corporate scandals, it's hardly surprising to learn that business students anticipate encountering ethical dilemmas at work. What is shocking, and disappointing, is to hear them say that they're unlikely to stand up for their personal values when those circumstances arise.
In a survey conducted by the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education involving MBA students at fifteen prestigious business schools from around the world, 83 percent of respondents said they expect to find themselves in work situations in which their personal values clash with what they're asked to do. Alarmingly, only 45 percent of those students say they're very likely to object. To be sure, in too many organizations, normally conscientious employees allow unethical behavior to thrive.
Consider this example: In what the Wall Street Journal called the "biggest accounting scam ever," WorldCom had $11 billion in hidden costs and overstated profits and revenues. The Report of Investigation by the Special Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of WorldCom explains that workers who knew better failed to object: "Employees who learned about improper corporate adjustments appear to have feared senior management's criticism or even the loss of their jobs."
Many recent corporate scandals were detectable, even avoidable, but workers ignored obvious signs of wrongdoing. Why? According to the Ethics Resource Center's 2003 National Business Ethics Survey, a big reason employees close their eyes to misconduct is the belief that management will avoid taking action anyway. The Aspen Institute's survey of future business leaders appears to validate that perception.
Hopefully, business schools are paying attention and will begin teaching their students the importance of confronting unethical behavior.
In a survey conducted by the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education involving MBA students at fifteen prestigious business schools from around the world, 83 percent of respondents said they expect to find themselves in work situations in which their personal values clash with what they're asked to do. Alarmingly, only 45 percent of those students say they're very likely to object. To be sure, in too many organizations, normally conscientious employees allow unethical behavior to thrive.
Consider this example: In what the Wall Street Journal called the "biggest accounting scam ever," WorldCom had $11 billion in hidden costs and overstated profits and revenues. The Report of Investigation by the Special Investigative Committee of the Board of Directors of WorldCom explains that workers who knew better failed to object: "Employees who learned about improper corporate adjustments appear to have feared senior management's criticism or even the loss of their jobs."
Many recent corporate scandals were detectable, even avoidable, but workers ignored obvious signs of wrongdoing. Why? According to the Ethics Resource Center's 2003 National Business Ethics Survey, a big reason employees close their eyes to misconduct is the belief that management will avoid taking action anyway. The Aspen Institute's survey of future business leaders appears to validate that perception.
Hopefully, business schools are paying attention and will begin teaching their students the importance of confronting unethical behavior.
Labels: integrity, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usTeen Ethics
Here's sobering news for hiring managers: four out of ten teenagers believe that cheating, plagiarizing, lying, or behaving violently is sometimes necessary for their success. The fifth annual Junior Achievement/Deloitte Teen Ethics Survey polled U.S. teenagers ranging in ages from thirteen to eighteen about their ethical standards. Although 71 percent of respondents said they have what it takes to make ethical decisions once they enter the workforce, 38 percent said dishonesty and violence are acceptable as long as those behaviors help them succeed.
Consider these findings: More than half of the 24 percent of teenagers who said it's okay to cheat on a test listed a personal desire to succeed as suitable rationalization. Twenty-three percent said violence toward others can be justifiable when settling arguments or seeking revenge. And while 95 percent said stealing something from a store is dishonest, 47 percent found nothing wrong with downloading music from an online retailer without paying for it.
"As the teens of today become the workforce of tomorrow, it is more important than ever that they learn how to make appropriate, ethical decisions," says Gerald Czarnecki, president and chief executive officer of JA Worldwide. Indeed. Leaders I speak with are increasingly frustrated to discover that many young people entering the fulltime workforce lack the ability to recognize right from wrong. They find themselves having to teach workplace behaviors they think young adults should already know; that it's proper to call their supervisors when staying home sick, for instance, or that it's improper to text message their friends during staff meetings. But who's going to teach this stuff to our youth?
As it turns out, Junior Achievement and Deloitte will. The two organizations have collaborated to launch JA Business Ethics, a new program developed to help prepare high school students for making ethical decisions at work. The program's hands-on classroom activities and real-life applications allow students to compare their personal beliefs with accepted ethics theories. Additionally, Junior Achievement updated Excellence through Ethics, its free online program that provides ethical lessons for students in grades four through twelve. "Our society relies on its members having a clear understanding that integrity and trust are the foundation of all human relationships," explains Czarnecki. Thankfully, JA and Deloitte are helping to build that foundation.
Consider these findings: More than half of the 24 percent of teenagers who said it's okay to cheat on a test listed a personal desire to succeed as suitable rationalization. Twenty-three percent said violence toward others can be justifiable when settling arguments or seeking revenge. And while 95 percent said stealing something from a store is dishonest, 47 percent found nothing wrong with downloading music from an online retailer without paying for it.
"As the teens of today become the workforce of tomorrow, it is more important than ever that they learn how to make appropriate, ethical decisions," says Gerald Czarnecki, president and chief executive officer of JA Worldwide. Indeed. Leaders I speak with are increasingly frustrated to discover that many young people entering the fulltime workforce lack the ability to recognize right from wrong. They find themselves having to teach workplace behaviors they think young adults should already know; that it's proper to call their supervisors when staying home sick, for instance, or that it's improper to text message their friends during staff meetings. But who's going to teach this stuff to our youth?
As it turns out, Junior Achievement and Deloitte will. The two organizations have collaborated to launch JA Business Ethics, a new program developed to help prepare high school students for making ethical decisions at work. The program's hands-on classroom activities and real-life applications allow students to compare their personal beliefs with accepted ethics theories. Additionally, Junior Achievement updated Excellence through Ethics, its free online program that provides ethical lessons for students in grades four through twelve. "Our society relies on its members having a clear understanding that integrity and trust are the foundation of all human relationships," explains Czarnecki. Thankfully, JA and Deloitte are helping to build that foundation.
Labels: employees, hiring, integrity, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us10 Great Leadership Blunders: 2007
It's time to recognize the ten dumbest leadership moves of the year. In what has become an annual tradition (hey, it's the second year in a row!), I have compiled ten examples of leadership behavior certain to strip the offenders of any credibility while triggering an employee stampede to the door.
1. In March, consumer-electronics retailer Circuit City fired 3,400 salespeople who earned 51 cents more per hour than what management called the "market-based salary range for their role." The company intended to replace the overpaid employees with workers willing to work for less. Then, the company's sales tanked. Stock analysts blamed the slump on management's decision to fire its most experienced employees. So, in a move even more offensive than the firings, Circuit City asked those terminated employees to come back to work and help revive the company's sales. Perhaps the company should consider the sincerity of its slogan, "It's all about helping you."
2. Circuit City is the first company to earn two spots on the 10 Great Leadership Blunders list, and it's an honor the retailer rightfully earned. In December, the same leaders who fired frontline salespeople for earning 51 cents an hour too much, awarded millions in cash incentives to "key executives" who agreed not to quit. Top executives were offered between $600,000 and $1 million each for promising to remain with the company until 2011. The company said it established the incentives "to ensure the stability of the company's leadership team." What stability? Circuit City’s board should think about offering Philip Schoonover a cash incentive NOT to stay.
3. Managers at Catfish Bend Casino in Burlington, Iowa were livid when they discovered a "Dilbert" comic strip hanging on an office bulletin board. In the cartoon, Dilbert begins a conversation with another fictional character by asking, "Why does it seem as if most of the decisions in my workplace are made by drunken lemurs?" The offended managers reviewed surveillance tapes until they found footage showing security supervisor David Steward posting the strip, and they promptly fired him. Defending the termination in court, the company's HR director Steve Morley testified, "Basically, he was accusing the decision-makers of being drunken lemurs." The judge sided with Steward -- who said he was simply trying to cheer up coworkers worried about upcoming layoffs -- and ordered the casino to pay his unemployment benefits. As if describing the leadership mindset that led to Steward's firing, Dilbert's comic-strip friend answers his question by explaining, "Decisions are made by people who have time, not people who have talent."
4. It's impossible to compile a list of leadership blunders without including politicians. Two particularly bone-headed moves stood out in 2007. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho was arrested after making sexual advances toward another man in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. The other man was an undercover police officer. After his arrest, Craig announced he would relinquish his Senate seat; he later changed his mind and plans to serve out the remainder of his term. In Plant City, Florida, vice mayor Robert Brown apologized publicly to his wife for having an extramarital affair. Although it's not uncommon for politicians to openly beg forgiveness for their indiscretions, Brown's apology came during a city commissioners' meeting. "I apologize for my behavior and the hurt I caused," Brown told his wife of twenty-five years, who was sitting in the audience. He presented her with flowers and a kiss and then resumed the meeting.
5. Things have not gone well at British Petroleum over the past two years. In May 2005, an explosion at a Texas refinery killed fifteen people. A pair of Alaskan pipeline leaks in 2006 was attributed to the company's shoddy maintenance practices. And recent problems have delayed completion of an oil production platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Through it all, John Browne somehow managed to hang onto his job as CEO. But at last, BP's board found something to fire Browne for: having a four-year relationship with a male escort and lying about it to the High Court during his lawsuit against a London tabloid. Board chair Peter Sutherland said Browne "should be compelled by his sense of honor to resign in these painful circumstances." Note to Sutherland: there's nothing honorable about deadly explosions and environmental disasters.
6. For eight years, an anonymous contributor to Internet financial forums wrote scathing criticisms about natural-food grocer Wild Oats Markets. In hundreds of posts, the writer known only by the pseudonym "Rahodeb," claimed the retailer's shares were overpriced and questioned why anyone would own the stock. In February, rival Whole Foods Market announced its intention to buy Wild Oats. While considering the antitrust ramifications of the merger, the Federal Trade Commission uncovered Rahodeb's true identity: Whole Foods Market CEO John Mackey. Whole Foods officials deny that Mackey used his secret identity to drive down Wild Oats' stock price before he bought the company, but a skeptical FTC moved to block the merger. Perhaps Rahodeb's most pathetic post was his response to another discussion-board writer who unwittingly poked fun at Mackey's haircut. "I like Mackey's haircut," said Rahodeb. "I think he looks cute!"
7. In its Code of Conduct for event attendees, Madison Square Garden -- owner of the New York Knicks basketball team and the New York Rangers hockey team -- asks guests to "be respectful of others around them" and "refrain from using foul/offensive language." Apparently, the Code does not apply to the Garden's male employees. In October, a Federal District Court in Manhattan ordered the Garden and its parent company Cablevision to pay $11.6 million to a former executive who was fired after she reported obscenity-laced tirades and unwanted sexual advances by Knicks coach Isiah Thomas. Sixteen days later, the company settled another sexual-harassment lawsuit filed by a former Rangers cheerleading-squad captain. The headline of a New York Times article by Selena Roberts appropriately cautions: "The Garden Needs a Warning Label."
8. While his company's hedge funds crumbled and helped fuel a developing global credit crisis, Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne went golfing and played bridge, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation. The newspaper reported that during an especially critical ten-day period in July, Cayne was in Nashville playing in a bridge tournament -- without his cell phone. Even as the crisis worsened throughout the summer, Cayne knocked off work on Thursday afternoons and played golf every Friday, according to the Journal. Two of Bear Stearns Asset Management's hedge funds lost billions through investments in securities backed by subprime mortgages. Cayne, who denied the allegations, announced that he would forgo his 2007 bonus.
9. MIT students and faculty members were shocked to learn that their school had fallen several places in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of colleges. Investigating MIT's drop from fourth to seventh place, the school newspaper discovered that officials had quietly fixed an "honest mistake" that inflated MIT's standings in previous years. Until this year, when calculating the average SAT scores of new students, MIT excluded the scores of foreign students. Non-native English-speaking students tend to score lower in reading on SAT tests than their American-born classmates, so omitting their scores overstated MIT's average and, thus, improved its standing in the magazine's report. It was the second scandal involving the MIT admissions department in 2007. In April, admissions dean Marilee Jones resigned after admitting she lied about her credentials when applying for a job at MIT twenty-eight years ago.
10. Before the New England Patriots went 16-0, they had to go to the woodshed. NFL officials discovered team leaders spying on New York Jets coaches during an early-season game, using a video camera to steal defensive signals from the Jets' sideline. Commissioner Roger Goodell fined Patriots head coach Bill Belichick $500,000. He also fined the team $250,000 and ordered owners to forgo this year's first-round draft choice. Critics say the Patriots' perfect season should be marked with an asterisk.
What do you think? Post a Comment
1. In March, consumer-electronics retailer Circuit City fired 3,400 salespeople who earned 51 cents more per hour than what management called the "market-based salary range for their role." The company intended to replace the overpaid employees with workers willing to work for less. Then, the company's sales tanked. Stock analysts blamed the slump on management's decision to fire its most experienced employees. So, in a move even more offensive than the firings, Circuit City asked those terminated employees to come back to work and help revive the company's sales. Perhaps the company should consider the sincerity of its slogan, "It's all about helping you."
2. Circuit City is the first company to earn two spots on the 10 Great Leadership Blunders list, and it's an honor the retailer rightfully earned. In December, the same leaders who fired frontline salespeople for earning 51 cents an hour too much, awarded millions in cash incentives to "key executives" who agreed not to quit. Top executives were offered between $600,000 and $1 million each for promising to remain with the company until 2011. The company said it established the incentives "to ensure the stability of the company's leadership team." What stability? Circuit City’s board should think about offering Philip Schoonover a cash incentive NOT to stay.
3. Managers at Catfish Bend Casino in Burlington, Iowa were livid when they discovered a "Dilbert" comic strip hanging on an office bulletin board. In the cartoon, Dilbert begins a conversation with another fictional character by asking, "Why does it seem as if most of the decisions in my workplace are made by drunken lemurs?" The offended managers reviewed surveillance tapes until they found footage showing security supervisor David Steward posting the strip, and they promptly fired him. Defending the termination in court, the company's HR director Steve Morley testified, "Basically, he was accusing the decision-makers of being drunken lemurs." The judge sided with Steward -- who said he was simply trying to cheer up coworkers worried about upcoming layoffs -- and ordered the casino to pay his unemployment benefits. As if describing the leadership mindset that led to Steward's firing, Dilbert's comic-strip friend answers his question by explaining, "Decisions are made by people who have time, not people who have talent."
4. It's impossible to compile a list of leadership blunders without including politicians. Two particularly bone-headed moves stood out in 2007. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho was arrested after making sexual advances toward another man in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. The other man was an undercover police officer. After his arrest, Craig announced he would relinquish his Senate seat; he later changed his mind and plans to serve out the remainder of his term. In Plant City, Florida, vice mayor Robert Brown apologized publicly to his wife for having an extramarital affair. Although it's not uncommon for politicians to openly beg forgiveness for their indiscretions, Brown's apology came during a city commissioners' meeting. "I apologize for my behavior and the hurt I caused," Brown told his wife of twenty-five years, who was sitting in the audience. He presented her with flowers and a kiss and then resumed the meeting.
5. Things have not gone well at British Petroleum over the past two years. In May 2005, an explosion at a Texas refinery killed fifteen people. A pair of Alaskan pipeline leaks in 2006 was attributed to the company's shoddy maintenance practices. And recent problems have delayed completion of an oil production platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Through it all, John Browne somehow managed to hang onto his job as CEO. But at last, BP's board found something to fire Browne for: having a four-year relationship with a male escort and lying about it to the High Court during his lawsuit against a London tabloid. Board chair Peter Sutherland said Browne "should be compelled by his sense of honor to resign in these painful circumstances." Note to Sutherland: there's nothing honorable about deadly explosions and environmental disasters.
6. For eight years, an anonymous contributor to Internet financial forums wrote scathing criticisms about natural-food grocer Wild Oats Markets. In hundreds of posts, the writer known only by the pseudonym "Rahodeb," claimed the retailer's shares were overpriced and questioned why anyone would own the stock. In February, rival Whole Foods Market announced its intention to buy Wild Oats. While considering the antitrust ramifications of the merger, the Federal Trade Commission uncovered Rahodeb's true identity: Whole Foods Market CEO John Mackey. Whole Foods officials deny that Mackey used his secret identity to drive down Wild Oats' stock price before he bought the company, but a skeptical FTC moved to block the merger. Perhaps Rahodeb's most pathetic post was his response to another discussion-board writer who unwittingly poked fun at Mackey's haircut. "I like Mackey's haircut," said Rahodeb. "I think he looks cute!"
7. In its Code of Conduct for event attendees, Madison Square Garden -- owner of the New York Knicks basketball team and the New York Rangers hockey team -- asks guests to "be respectful of others around them" and "refrain from using foul/offensive language." Apparently, the Code does not apply to the Garden's male employees. In October, a Federal District Court in Manhattan ordered the Garden and its parent company Cablevision to pay $11.6 million to a former executive who was fired after she reported obscenity-laced tirades and unwanted sexual advances by Knicks coach Isiah Thomas. Sixteen days later, the company settled another sexual-harassment lawsuit filed by a former Rangers cheerleading-squad captain. The headline of a New York Times article by Selena Roberts appropriately cautions: "The Garden Needs a Warning Label."
8. While his company's hedge funds crumbled and helped fuel a developing global credit crisis, Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne went golfing and played bridge, according to a Wall Street Journal investigation. The newspaper reported that during an especially critical ten-day period in July, Cayne was in Nashville playing in a bridge tournament -- without his cell phone. Even as the crisis worsened throughout the summer, Cayne knocked off work on Thursday afternoons and played golf every Friday, according to the Journal. Two of Bear Stearns Asset Management's hedge funds lost billions through investments in securities backed by subprime mortgages. Cayne, who denied the allegations, announced that he would forgo his 2007 bonus.
9. MIT students and faculty members were shocked to learn that their school had fallen several places in U.S. News & World Report’s annual ranking of colleges. Investigating MIT's drop from fourth to seventh place, the school newspaper discovered that officials had quietly fixed an "honest mistake" that inflated MIT's standings in previous years. Until this year, when calculating the average SAT scores of new students, MIT excluded the scores of foreign students. Non-native English-speaking students tend to score lower in reading on SAT tests than their American-born classmates, so omitting their scores overstated MIT's average and, thus, improved its standing in the magazine's report. It was the second scandal involving the MIT admissions department in 2007. In April, admissions dean Marilee Jones resigned after admitting she lied about her credentials when applying for a job at MIT twenty-eight years ago.
10. Before the New England Patriots went 16-0, they had to go to the woodshed. NFL officials discovered team leaders spying on New York Jets coaches during an early-season game, using a video camera to steal defensive signals from the Jets' sideline. Commissioner Roger Goodell fined Patriots head coach Bill Belichick $500,000. He also fined the team $250,000 and ordered owners to forgo this year's first-round draft choice. Critics say the Patriots' perfect season should be marked with an asterisk.
Labels: credibility, integrity, leadership, trust, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
I hope your list is in order. The Circuit City debacle was amazing to me. For years I've shopped there rather than Best Buy because Circuit City's employees were head and shoulders above Best Buy's. I could go there to ask questions and be confident I would get a thoughtful answer. No more. So now I have two bad choices in the big box electronics field.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
It never ceases to amaze me how many CEOs are prepared to wreck the ship on the rocks, just to prove they are the captain.
What do you think? Post a Comment
Hey, you don't suppose they really are our greatest assets, do you?
Remember last March, when Circuit City fired 3,400 salespeople with the intention of replacing them with lower-paid workers? As it turns out, that wasn't a very good business strategy. The consumer-electronics retailer has struggled ever since and senior officials are expecting the company to lose money this year. This week, analysts downgraded Circuit City's stock and blamed the company's weakened sales performance on management's decision to fire its most experienced employees.
Now, in an act even more impudent than the March firings, Circuit City is asking those former employees to come back and help revive the company's sales. Circuit City spokesperson Bill Cimino told Reuters, "In a lot of cases, we've completely changed how our stores operate. We've got a better career path now for associates."
I don't know how many workers aspire to a path where the company fires you to save 51 cents an hour and then, with its back against the wall, asks you to forgive and forget the eight-month interruption they imposed in your career. As one analyst put it, at Circuit City, "execution remains a significant concern."
Now, in an act even more impudent than the March firings, Circuit City is asking those former employees to come back and help revive the company's sales. Circuit City spokesperson Bill Cimino told Reuters, "In a lot of cases, we've completely changed how our stores operate. We've got a better career path now for associates."
I don't know how many workers aspire to a path where the company fires you to save 51 cents an hour and then, with its back against the wall, asks you to forgive and forget the eight-month interruption they imposed in your career. As one analyst put it, at Circuit City, "execution remains a significant concern."
Labels: credibility, integrity, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usA Culture of Misfits?
As I've stressed before, the key to effective hiring lies in making sure an applicant's personal values align with the culture of your organization. To be sure, finding workers with the skills or experience needed to perform a job is important. But misjudging how a candidate will fit into your company's culture will likely lead to dissatisfaction for both you and the newly hired employee. If you find spotting that connection challenging, you're not alone.
In a recent poll, 59 percent of human resource managers admitted to hiring a candidate who proved to be a poor fit for their company's culture. The survey, conducted by staffing specialists OfficeTeam, revealed a major pitfall of hiring people ill-suited for an organization's culture: 85 percent of HR managers acknowledged losing a staff member who did not fit the company's work environment.
Diane Domeyer, OfficeTeam's executive director, says the interview is a good opportunity to assess the employer-employee fit -- for both parties. "The interview is a two-way street," says Domeyer. "Employers are looking for clues to an applicant's work ethic and personality, and job seekers want to learn more about the company culture." To help hiring managers find good matches, she suggests asking potential candidates the following type of interview questions:
In a recent poll, 59 percent of human resource managers admitted to hiring a candidate who proved to be a poor fit for their company's culture. The survey, conducted by staffing specialists OfficeTeam, revealed a major pitfall of hiring people ill-suited for an organization's culture: 85 percent of HR managers acknowledged losing a staff member who did not fit the company's work environment.
Diane Domeyer, OfficeTeam's executive director, says the interview is a good opportunity to assess the employer-employee fit -- for both parties. "The interview is a two-way street," says Domeyer. "Employers are looking for clues to an applicant's work ethic and personality, and job seekers want to learn more about the company culture." To help hiring managers find good matches, she suggests asking potential candidates the following type of interview questions:
- What type of work environment brings out your best performance?As it turns out, recognizing a good work-culture fit is difficult for job applicants, too. Nearly half of the respondents in the OfficeTeam survey said they have misjudged an eventual employer's work environment in the past.
- In what type of work environment are you least likely to thrive?
- What did you like best/least about your last job and why?
- Considering your greatest accomplishments in previous roles, what were the factors that allowed you to be successful?
Labels: employees, hiring, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usA Wake-Up Call
We create mission statements because we want employees to see our big picture. Question is do we see theirs? Amid a growing war for talent, organizations are slow to recognize the role that values play in attracting, motivating, and keeping employees. But as a new survey reveals, employees are already paying attention.
In a nationwide telephone survey conducted by CO2 Partners, less than half of all respondents said their employer's core values match their own. What's more, a whopping 30 percent of workers think their core values may actually be misaligned with those of their employer. So what's causing employees to feel disengaged from their organizations' values?
When hiring workers, companies show perspective employees how aligning with the organization's values will meet their personal interests and needs. But once on board, employees look for evidence of compatibility -- proof that their leader's values are in alignment with the organization's, and thus, their own. Without frequent confirmation from their leader, employees might conclude the organization's values are not what they thought they were. If they perceive, whether accurately or not, that management changed or somehow misrepresented the values, employees will feel unaligned.
"Clearly, there is a link between core values and emotional commitment," says Gary Cohen, president of CO2 Partners. "If organizations are going to grow talent and commitment there has to be mutuality when it comes to communication and operating principles."
As a leader, your task is clear. By proactively demonstrating the correlation between your personal values and those of the organization, you will validate for employees that their values are compatible with those of the company. To do that, you must live by the values you profess.
What do you think? Post a Comment
In a nationwide telephone survey conducted by CO2 Partners, less than half of all respondents said their employer's core values match their own. What's more, a whopping 30 percent of workers think their core values may actually be misaligned with those of their employer. So what's causing employees to feel disengaged from their organizations' values?
When hiring workers, companies show perspective employees how aligning with the organization's values will meet their personal interests and needs. But once on board, employees look for evidence of compatibility -- proof that their leader's values are in alignment with the organization's, and thus, their own. Without frequent confirmation from their leader, employees might conclude the organization's values are not what they thought they were. If they perceive, whether accurately or not, that management changed or somehow misrepresented the values, employees will feel unaligned.
"Clearly, there is a link between core values and emotional commitment," says Gary Cohen, president of CO2 Partners. "If organizations are going to grow talent and commitment there has to be mutuality when it comes to communication and operating principles."
As a leader, your task is clear. By proactively demonstrating the correlation between your personal values and those of the organization, you will validate for employees that their values are compatible with those of the company. To do that, you must live by the values you profess.
Labels: employees, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Great post! The key is to find out from your employees what their own personal core values are and get them to seek SIMILARITIES as opposed to differences with the company core values. Point out that the "labels" may be different, but the meanings can be similar.
What do you think? Post a Comment
Learning How To Cheat
"Duke University is a community of scholars and learners, committed to the principles of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, and respect for others. Students share with faculty and staff the responsibility for promoting a climate of integrity. As citizens of this community, students are expected to adhere to these fundamental values all times, in both their academic and non-academic endeavors." -The Fuqua School of Business Honor Code
The honor code at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business hangs in every classroom, serving as a constant reminder to students of the college's core values. What's more, all prospective students receive a written copy of the code and, before gaining acceptance to the prestigious school, must agree in writing to abide by it. Why so much emphasis on a values statement? "Fuqua depends on every member of its community to uphold the code in both spirit and action," says Dean Douglas Breeden. Sounds good, right?
Maybe it's not good enough. There's news this week that officials at Fuqua caught thirty-four first-year MBA students cheating. A professor noticed suspicious similarities in students' answers to questions on a take-home exam. An investigation revealed that the students collaborated on the test in violation of the professor's instructions. All but four students in the class of thirty-eight participated in the cheating.
Although it may be the largest incident of college dishonesty, Duke's is not an isolated episode. In a survey published last year in Academy of Management Learning & Education, 56 percent of graduate business students acknowledged that they have cheated. Donald McCabe, a Rutgers professor who worked on the survey, says students are quick to blame their cheating on the post-Enron business environment. "They'll argue that they're just emulating the behavior they're seeing in the corporate world," he says. "They're acquiring a skill that will serve them well when they're out there."
So is college cheating just one more consequence of the corruption involving companies like Enron, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and Tyco?
The honor code at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business hangs in every classroom, serving as a constant reminder to students of the college's core values. What's more, all prospective students receive a written copy of the code and, before gaining acceptance to the prestigious school, must agree in writing to abide by it. Why so much emphasis on a values statement? "Fuqua depends on every member of its community to uphold the code in both spirit and action," says Dean Douglas Breeden. Sounds good, right?
Maybe it's not good enough. There's news this week that officials at Fuqua caught thirty-four first-year MBA students cheating. A professor noticed suspicious similarities in students' answers to questions on a take-home exam. An investigation revealed that the students collaborated on the test in violation of the professor's instructions. All but four students in the class of thirty-eight participated in the cheating.
Although it may be the largest incident of college dishonesty, Duke's is not an isolated episode. In a survey published last year in Academy of Management Learning & Education, 56 percent of graduate business students acknowledged that they have cheated. Donald McCabe, a Rutgers professor who worked on the survey, says students are quick to blame their cheating on the post-Enron business environment. "They'll argue that they're just emulating the behavior they're seeing in the corporate world," he says. "They're acquiring a skill that will serve them well when they're out there."
So is college cheating just one more consequence of the corruption involving companies like Enron, Arthur Anderson, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and Tyco?
Labels: integrity, trust, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usMinimal Leadership
Philosopher, ethicist, and author Sissela Bok believes that there is a set of fundamental values that exists in every society -- values universally embraced because they are critical to group survival. In her book, Common Values, she divides these basic values into the following three categories:
It's not a stretch to apply Bok's concept of minimalist values to the communities present within our workplaces. Workers everywhere expect their employers to maintain positive values such as treating people with dignity and respect, providing adequate training, and paying everyone fairly. Employees also count on their organizations to uphold negative values barring hurtful behaviors that include racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or polluting the environment. And workers expect their companies to enforce fairly internal policies that spell out right from wrong -- and they presume that company leaders will intervene if someone breaks the rules. These are the basic values employees look for in a company. They form the foundation of values-based leadership and, as such, they are critical to your organization's survival.
1. The positive duties concerning mutual care, loyalty, and reciprocity.Bok explains that these "minimalist values" cross societal boundaries because they are critical to every society's continued existence. Furthermore, she suggests these common values give leaders a foundation on which to establish multicultural, problem-solving dialogues.
2. The negative bans against harmful actions, including violence, deceit, and betrayal.
3. The rules governing the concepts of right and wrong, as well as the procedures for obtaining justice.
It's not a stretch to apply Bok's concept of minimalist values to the communities present within our workplaces. Workers everywhere expect their employers to maintain positive values such as treating people with dignity and respect, providing adequate training, and paying everyone fairly. Employees also count on their organizations to uphold negative values barring hurtful behaviors that include racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or polluting the environment. And workers expect their companies to enforce fairly internal policies that spell out right from wrong -- and they presume that company leaders will intervene if someone breaks the rules. These are the basic values employees look for in a company. They form the foundation of values-based leadership and, as such, they are critical to your organization's survival.
Labels: employees, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us51 Cents
Circuit City announced last week the firing of 3,400 sales associates who the company considered overpaid. According to The Baltimore Sun, the terminated salespeople earned 51 cents more per hour than what the company called the "market-based salary range for their role." To complete the repulsive act that company officials labeled a "wage management initiative," the electronics retailer said it would replace the fired salespeople with lower-paid workers.
There's no better example of an organization violating its values than this action by Circuit City. On its Web site, the company's list of values includes the following statements:
What do you think? Post a Comment
There's no better example of an organization violating its values than this action by Circuit City. On its Web site, the company's list of values includes the following statements:
Our associates are our greatest assets. What former, current, or future associate could ever believe this statement knowing that management fires those "greatest assets" making 51 cents an hour too much?Consistency between an organization's stated values and its leaders' actual behavior is critical to credibility. With such discrepancy between what its leaders say and what they do, Circuit City employees will immediately and rightly recognize their leaders as frauds.
What's in it for you? We foster an environment of engagement where associates are invested and involved in the future of the company. What's "in it" for the associates is the hourly wage that the company offered them when they joined up -- that is, when they invested their efforts into Circuit City.
Our integrity must never be compromised. Too late! Management has destroyed its integrity with the company's employees forever.
Labels: credibility, integrity, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
The honcho's at Circuit City could care less about what their employees think. Values? Nothing but a word to these pompous asses. Look at the other words that are so cleverly and flippantly thrown around business today:
Oh yes Mr./Ms. employee, we would like your "buy-in" to our new program. Today "buy-in" is an overused codeword for jamming something down your throat.
And we would certainly like you to take "ownership" of your job, department, etc. Another codeword for "Think like us (and work a lot harder) - but you'll never participate in the executive stock option plan."
And who will "Champion" this project? Meaning who will get stuck with it and have to work late and come in this weekend.
Cheap words! Consider the source.
Oh yes Mr./Ms. employee, we would like your "buy-in" to our new program. Today "buy-in" is an overused codeword for jamming something down your throat.
And we would certainly like you to take "ownership" of your job, department, etc. Another codeword for "Think like us (and work a lot harder) - but you'll never participate in the executive stock option plan."
And who will "Champion" this project? Meaning who will get stuck with it and have to work late and come in this weekend.
Cheap words! Consider the source.
What do you think? Post a Comment
Tyrants at Work
Nearly half of all U.S. employees have worked for a bully at some point in their careers, according to a new survey by the Employment Law Alliance. In the nationwide poll, 44 percent of respondents said they have worked for a manager they consider abusive. The study reveals that abusive supervisor behavior is escalating into a dangerous workplace problem.
In the survey, abused employees described bullies who degraded them in public, rudely interrupted them, criticized them in front of their coworkers, yelled at them, or simply ignored them altogether.
Employers should take note of the survey because 64 percent of the respondents believe abused workers should have legal recourse to sue their abusive bosses for damages. But there are other critical -- although less litigious -- consequences of abuse. "Demeaned workers respond with a reduced commitment and loss of productivity, and they run for the exits," says Robert Sutton, author of The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't. "It is time for senior management to realize that this conduct damages their people and is costing them a fortune."
If you exhibit some abusive traits, you might think you're succeeding in bullying people to up their level of performance. But in the end, your employees will settle the score by withholding their best efforts. Values-based leadership allows you the luxury of being effective without abusing your workers.
In the survey, abused employees described bullies who degraded them in public, rudely interrupted them, criticized them in front of their coworkers, yelled at them, or simply ignored them altogether.
Employers should take note of the survey because 64 percent of the respondents believe abused workers should have legal recourse to sue their abusive bosses for damages. But there are other critical -- although less litigious -- consequences of abuse. "Demeaned workers respond with a reduced commitment and loss of productivity, and they run for the exits," says Robert Sutton, author of The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't. "It is time for senior management to realize that this conduct damages their people and is costing them a fortune."
If you exhibit some abusive traits, you might think you're succeeding in bullying people to up their level of performance. But in the end, your employees will settle the score by withholding their best efforts. Values-based leadership allows you the luxury of being effective without abusing your workers.
Labels: employees, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usWhen Will You Be Satisfied?
Fewer than half of all U.S. workers are satisfied with their jobs. This unsurprising pronouncement comes from the latest edition of an employee survey sponsored by The Conference Board. The results are not surprising because The Conference Board has conducted the annual survey for twenty years and, in every study, nearly one out of two workers expressed dissatisfaction in their situations.
What do employees dislike about their jobs? Just about everything, it seems. Workers give their companies low marks for their bonus plans, promotion policies, performance review processes, workloads, work/life balance commitments, communication channels, training opportunities, recognition programs, and career growth potentials. About the only thing employees are happy with are their commutes.
Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, hopes the survey's results will wake up companies interested in employee retention. "A certain amount of dissatisfaction with one's job is to be expected," says Franco. But, he adds, "the breadth of dissatisfaction is somewhat unsettling, since it carries over from what attracts employees to a job to what keeps them motivated and productive on the job." He warns that 20 percent of survey respondents do not see themselves in their current jobs one year from now.
But before you start redesigning compensations plans and performance review forms, notice that the survey fails to determine how employees feel about their companies' missions. Why is that important? The dictionary defines satisfaction as a feeling of gratifications that results from fulfilling a need. In their jobs, people seek out employers whose values are consistent with their own, and look for ways to satisfy their interests and needs by aligning with an organization's mission. So while workers will always complain about certain aspects of their jobs -- we call that human nature -- what will really satisfy your employees is your proven commitment to the organization's values.
What do employees dislike about their jobs? Just about everything, it seems. Workers give their companies low marks for their bonus plans, promotion policies, performance review processes, workloads, work/life balance commitments, communication channels, training opportunities, recognition programs, and career growth potentials. About the only thing employees are happy with are their commutes.
Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, hopes the survey's results will wake up companies interested in employee retention. "A certain amount of dissatisfaction with one's job is to be expected," says Franco. But, he adds, "the breadth of dissatisfaction is somewhat unsettling, since it carries over from what attracts employees to a job to what keeps them motivated and productive on the job." He warns that 20 percent of survey respondents do not see themselves in their current jobs one year from now.
But before you start redesigning compensations plans and performance review forms, notice that the survey fails to determine how employees feel about their companies' missions. Why is that important? The dictionary defines satisfaction as a feeling of gratifications that results from fulfilling a need. In their jobs, people seek out employers whose values are consistent with their own, and look for ways to satisfy their interests and needs by aligning with an organization's mission. So while workers will always complain about certain aspects of their jobs -- we call that human nature -- what will really satisfy your employees is your proven commitment to the organization's values.
Labels: employees, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usWhat's In a Name?
When Andrew Carnegie was a child, he enjoyed raising rabbits. His father built a shelter for the animals and the Carnegie homestead became a popular gathering place for young Andrew and his friends. Andrew was in charge of feeding the prolific brood and he quickly realized the enormity of his task. Without any money to hire help, he struck a unique deal with his companions. In exchange for spending their summers gathering dandelions and clover as food for his pets, Andrew promised to name newborn rabbits after them. This hard bargain was, noted Carnegie in his autobiography, "the poorest return ever made to labor."
Later in life, as a philanthropist, Carnegie again bestowed naming rights as a reward for hard work. Charlie Taylor was the original president of the Hero Fund, a pension fund that Carnegie established for families of fallen heroes. When Taylor refused to take a salary for the job, Carnegie set about finding another way to compensate him. A graduate of Lehigh University, Taylor had been urging Carnegie to contribute money to the school for construction of a new building. So Carnegie secretly contacted Lehigh's president and offered to pay for the building on the condition they name it "Taylor Hall." When Taylor uncovered the plot, he objected and insisted that he was unworthy of that kind of recognition. Carnegie took great delight in watching his friend's protest and jokingly insisted that he would reconsider his contribution to Lehigh if Taylor withheld the use of his name. Carnegie later wrote, "Visitors who may look upon that structure in after days and wonder who Taylor was may rest assured that he was a loyal son of Lehigh, a working, not merely a preaching, apostle of the gospel of service to his fellow-men, and one of the best men that ever lived."
Carnegie was not without his faults when it came to dealing with his employees. After all, he made his fortune at a time in American business history when immoral labor practices prevailed. But when money was not a viable reward, he found a priceless way of inspiring people. He simply used their names.
Later in life, as a philanthropist, Carnegie again bestowed naming rights as a reward for hard work. Charlie Taylor was the original president of the Hero Fund, a pension fund that Carnegie established for families of fallen heroes. When Taylor refused to take a salary for the job, Carnegie set about finding another way to compensate him. A graduate of Lehigh University, Taylor had been urging Carnegie to contribute money to the school for construction of a new building. So Carnegie secretly contacted Lehigh's president and offered to pay for the building on the condition they name it "Taylor Hall." When Taylor uncovered the plot, he objected and insisted that he was unworthy of that kind of recognition. Carnegie took great delight in watching his friend's protest and jokingly insisted that he would reconsider his contribution to Lehigh if Taylor withheld the use of his name. Carnegie later wrote, "Visitors who may look upon that structure in after days and wonder who Taylor was may rest assured that he was a loyal son of Lehigh, a working, not merely a preaching, apostle of the gospel of service to his fellow-men, and one of the best men that ever lived."
Carnegie was not without his faults when it came to dealing with his employees. After all, he made his fortune at a time in American business history when immoral labor practices prevailed. But when money was not a viable reward, he found a priceless way of inspiring people. He simply used their names.
Labels: leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usLive With Integrity: The World is Watching
In this age of instant information, any ethical misstep by a well-known person is just a click away from our desktop. That's why, after watching the behavior of the former heads of scandal-plagued companies such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, many people now find it difficult to trust any corporate CEO. And why, after listening to the campaign gaffes of a few disgraceful politicians, it's easy for a weary public to imagine that, deep down, everyone in Congress is a racist. The barrage of news stories reporting the transgressions of powerful people is creating an overwhelming generalization among the American population: that is, that no one is trustworthy.
What can a single person do to change that mindset? As a young boy, Benjamin Franklin obtained a battered copy of the book, Essays to do Good, and later attributed his virtuous conduct to the lessons he found in its pages. One passage he valued stated, "a little man may do a great deal of harm; and pray, why not a little man do a great deal of good?" Consider this argument in light of today's ethical environment: if the behavior of a small group of business and political figures can cast suspicion on the integrity of an entire nation, why can't the actions of a small number of morally strong individuals restore the republic's faith that people are generally good?
By choosing to live with integrity, you'll help to fight back the onslaught of unethical behavior. You might not get the publicity afforded business scoundrels and nasty politicians. But those close to you will notice, and you'll succeed in proving that there are still honorable people in the world.
What do you think? Post a Comment
What can a single person do to change that mindset? As a young boy, Benjamin Franklin obtained a battered copy of the book, Essays to do Good, and later attributed his virtuous conduct to the lessons he found in its pages. One passage he valued stated, "a little man may do a great deal of harm; and pray, why not a little man do a great deal of good?" Consider this argument in light of today's ethical environment: if the behavior of a small group of business and political figures can cast suspicion on the integrity of an entire nation, why can't the actions of a small number of morally strong individuals restore the republic's faith that people are generally good?
By choosing to live with integrity, you'll help to fight back the onslaught of unethical behavior. You might not get the publicity afforded business scoundrels and nasty politicians. But those close to you will notice, and you'll succeed in proving that there are still honorable people in the world.
Labels: integrity, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
This is very similar in concept to St. Therese's "Little Way". By doing the little things, you will be noticed. Little people doing little things can change everything.
What do you think? Post a Comment
Author George Brymer's comments about the leaders who get it, and those who never will.
