One of the measures relevant to engaging employees is always whether they trust management. But isn’t it even more relevant to ask whether management trusts employees.

That is – to ask whether leaders believe employees have the capacity to contribute meaningfully. A great many managers treat employees as cogs in the machine. They don’t want or expect employees to bring their brains to work, just their hands as has often been observed. Follow orders, produce what’s asked of you when we ask. Shift to the new strategy when we tell you to. All formulas for disengagement on a massive scale.

Effective leaders take calculated risks. And one major area of risk is trusting employees to come up with useful ideas and then supporting and helping troubleshoot with them through the inevitable organizational hurdles – no budget, tried that before, not workable for any number of reasons.

Now it’s likely the manager isn’t going to fully understand or see the idea in the same light of certainty as the employee. In fact, highly effective leaders often spend lots of energy encouraging employees to try ideas that neither of them is completely certain about. If either was completely certain it wouldn’t be a very creative, novel, untested idea with the potential to dramatically improve things, but just a moderate extension of what’s already known to work.

It takes courage to encourage (notice the similarity of words) a subordinate to take a risk that may reflect badly on both of you at some point. That’s why it’s so important in companies to establish a culture in which ideas, pilots, trial and error and reasonable mistakes are supported and promoted. That way managers feel supported in supporting their employees’ ideas in turn.

So when we look at trust, it’s important to see that it works both ways and, as with all strategies, starts from the top. If top managers don’t support risk-taking and trial and error and don’t trust employees to be testing things that seems a bit outside the box, how can we expect employees to blindly trust managers? This becomes increasingly true day by day as we evolve into an era in which every organization’s survival depends on continual creativity and improvement – so much so that no single senior executive or executive team can possibly come up with, let alone test, enough ideas to sustain competitiveness into the unpredictable future we all face.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

It correctly notes about 40% of leaders in business (and elsewhere) are actually introverts. That shouldn’t be such a surprise, but it usually is. Being quiet, thoughtful and liking ‘alone time’ has never stopped actors, singers, speakers and leaders in other supposedly ‘extraverted’ endeavors from excelling. It’s not as clearly understood as other ‘obvious’ leadership traits that we are normally trained to think of, but introversion can contribute a lot. We need balance, and who better to understand how to balance the demands for being out in public with thoughtfulness than people who can see both.

In a presentation I have coming up for a senior university class on leadership, I thought I should show some photos of myself as a kid so these younger students could related to the gray-haired, bespectacled guy in front of them – someone who was a super shy, introverted kid who ultimately was able to learn to succeed as an executive and speaker. To me the transformation has always seemed almost unbelievable. I dragged out some old shots and was surprised to find I didn’t look as scrawny and geeky as I thought and I could actually see the progress, in increments, from that kid to the full fledged executive I ultimately became.

                                        
The kid………..             the union leader………          the graying executive.

So I thought I’d go find a photo of someone somewhat ‘geeky’ looking like what I had in my mind when I thought of myself in those teenage years. What turned up was a photo I will show the class with the comment, “As a kid I was convinced no one who looked the following guy, like how I thought I was, could ever be a leader, let alone someone who could make real contributions.” Nobody ever told me leaders could be like this unless they more or less walked on water. I think the message here is, when you see yourself as weak and introverted, it almost doesn’t matter what  you look like – you’ve put limits on yourself that no one else is seeing. Thankfully I had experiences that slowly, but surely helped me develop a different style of behavior, yet I continued to see myself as the shy kid I was once. Here’s that photo: I wish.!

Bookmark and share this post

More »

I wrote the rest of this post to a friend, another keen observer, David Creelman of Creelman Research, who brought it to my attention. I realize this is actually a review:

Just finished Managing and have some thoughts it seems good to put down here. It’s an impressive assembly of far-reaching thinking. I think it will probably frustrate and confuse a lot of readers, which is too bad, but possibly an inevitable step in recognizing what really works. The management/leadership complex is just that – very, very complex without any clear single answers, very situational and requiring unique fit or adaptability to succeed at. I agree with the general premise, but would word it a bit differently. I would say not have said we are wrong to hold up leaders as worthy of examination and sometimes praise, but we are wrong to deify the idea of leader and leadership (and wrong to talk about it as a set of things that can be learned by the usual rote learning we get in schools). However, I believe that leaders do make a difference if they operate as Mintzberg outlines – constantly learning and reflecting and by trial and error efforts to improve things. I’m sure he would agree and wonder a bit why he didn’t make that more clear.

As I see it, organizations solidify the ossified structures they form in hopes of sustaining themselves as the original driving leader(s) move on. Theoretically the structure that worked should be able to adapt with new people coming into the slots and changing them to fit changing circumstances, but we haven’t paid nearly enough attention to that concept. We treat the structure almost as sacred once it’s in place (despite the tendency to constantly ‘re-organize’ to solve every problem, which really amounts to re-arranging the deck chairs – it doesn’t really change much – the power hierarchy is too attractive to those rising in it). To some extent the organization structure does ensure some continuity, but for how long if it doesn’t evolve?

It’s easy for those appointed to assume that they somehow inherit the stature of those who built the organization in the first place, not realizing it wasn’t a one-person show, but a cooperative effort that may be seen from outside to be one person. The fact that some initial leaders are strong-man types who create by force and maintain power by force leads to confusion as well. When we know that 90% plus of leaders believe they’re in the smartest 10%, it’s easy to see why they are so willing to try to impose their vision as Mintzberg points out is so common among those newly promoted. At that moment you’re at the peak of confidence in your infallibility; it’s just been proven, so why not impose it? Then it’s hard to back down and reveal your uncertainty as things begin not to work. You may not even realize it isn’t working and just apply more force to drive things the way you ’see they will work if only everyone cooperates (with your vision).’

We need to help people see that maintaining and developing existing organizations is no less challenging, but very different from the initiating, entrepreneurial phase, that a different type of leader, adept with equally difficult, but different challenges, is needed – one who needs to manage and lead in a very different way, with more visible involvement of others typically, building a truly learning organization, which has to start with a learning leader.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

The language and style are very engaging, although I’m a reader at heart, so they may not suit everyone. For a leader who exudes all five of the core leadership principles I promote, there is none better. I’m glad I’ve lived to see a truly logical, sane individual in what many consider the most powerful office in the world. I have to express surprise that a political system as much criticized as the US has been able at last to put someone of his mental caliber in the role. As Churchill observed, ‘democracy is the worst political system except for all the others.’ Sometimes it really seems to work visibly.

It’s just a shame that so many of the most vocal individuals we elect are not up to this level. Of course, the even greater shame is that the efforts and abilities of just one person are likely to be mostly thwarted by the rest, though I believe the effort still pays off in the long term by establishing ideas that won’t ever go away and someday will see action. I’m a great believer that we don’t give politicians enough credit for the good struggles they attempt and the tremendous efforts and goodwill most of them bring. Unfortunately getting consensus on consistent directions is notoriously difficult at best among so many varied interests and opinions. and often it seems like two steps back to one forward. Nevertheless our humanly flawed leaders have produced some great societies for us to live in.

Regardless of whether specific policies never get passed in the welter of competing interests, I think Obama has already given the world a gift – a logical,  well-argued set of objectives that will undoubtedly be quoted far and wide for years, perhaps centuries, to come. And his very human struggle to come to terms with his own life and place in the world are.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Here we have the core puzzle of leadership development. The best training programs are established by many of these poor leaders who get to the top. The programs focus on skills that make for better leadership. In my own experience, top leaders were invited to speak at company training programs and gave impressive speeches touching on all the key principles, which they then ignored applying in their own behavior, with disastrous results.

Nevertheless, the article goes on to say, we will see dramatic improvement in future thanks to today’s insightful training. Really? If so, it clearly won’t be the training, but the attendees who make the difference. We’ve been teaching servant leadership, situational leadership and dozens of other effective models for 50 years. Still only a handful of truly effective leaders exist in top roles today.

We point the finger of fault in many directions – business schools, lack of measurement, poor HR – but we don’t face the likely fact that it is all of us and none of us who are to blame. Slowly, but surely we advance and tolerate poor leaders because they have the old-fashioned look of charisma, control and confidence that others lack and we can’t see anyone else being ready. We ignore evidence, training, common sense and examples of the best leadership styles to promote.

Only if a new generation of leaders and staff refuse to work with or for poor managers will we see this start to change. Will that be Gen X or Y or Millennials? Time will tell. In the mean time, the hard drivers, who think they have all the answers will likely continue to surge toward the top while the ‘continuous learner’ types who would make far better choices continue to question their readiness, along with everyone who makes the selections.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Reading their link to the “First Pages” of the older book is really worthwhile to make instantly clear the history of effective HR and OD and how early lessons apply directly today, ultimately explaining how smart financial leaders led us into the current mess.

Conclusion? McLaughlin quotes Weisbord. .from 1987! “The world is changing too fast for experts, and old-fashioned “problem-solving” no longer works. For the past forty years productive workplaces on several continents have been evolving another way entirely of thinking and acting. First, they have been moving away from problem-solving toward whole-systems improvement as the secret for solving great handfuls of problems at once. Second, they have been moving away from getting experts to fix systems toward having experts join everybody else in learning how to make improvements.”

Doesn’t that sound like social networking and The Wisdom of Crowds over command-and-control leadership? You bet! So why haven’t we arrived yet at the point where everyone understands this? I suppose double-entry bookkeeping wasn’t thoroughly accepted by 100% of business for its first hundred years either, though now you wouldn’t start into serious business management without such basic accounting.

McLaughlin goes on to link another excellent article by NYT’s Nicholas Kristof, illustrating how well-functioning groups should be able to out-do experts and ties it directly to today’s disasters. When will we finally learn these lessons and concentrate on leading in new ways?

PS: I love one of Kristof’s references to Berkeley’s Philip Tetlock (author of the 2005 book, Expert Political Judgment – which could have been subtitled ‘yeah, right’). Tetlock, he notes, uses the description “hedgehog” in a negative way. For me that illustrates balancing Jim Collins’ use of it in Good to Great to describe the positive need for focus, which in turn illustrates again the need for balance rather than too much of any one element of effective leadership. And in many cases balance only is achievable by including more people in the process of leadership.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

What I mean is HR sits in the middle of controversy by its very nature. I was fascinated yesterday to read two seemingly opposing views of using the Internet ‘for fun’ while at work. Richard Proctor of APL Borealis (who sell blocking software) argues it’s a six-hour a week productivity time-waster (seemingly confirmed by articles such as this from a Gallup study) that should be blocked while a study from University of Melbourne finds those using it at work average 9% greater productivity. The truth almost certainly blends the two points of view as you can hear in the Melbourne professor’s comments:

Notice that many of the figures are likely in the ballpark:  14% are addicted and would benefit by having at least some, maybe all, sites blocked, but on average there’s greater productivity overall from allowing people to use the Internet casually at work. Coker cites millions of dollars ‘wasted’ on blocking and appeals for understanding the ‘psychological’ factors that lead to productivity.

If you’re HR, working for a CEO or CFO with a clear point of view on this, you’re likely not going to waste much energy debating beyond tabling both sides of the argument. Many knee-jerk reactions will go one way or the other absolutely and we know which level of the organization chart dictates which way wins.

And yet this, of course, is an HR problem, right? This is about people and productivity. Once decided, no one’s going to argue with the CEO, but they’ll blame “HR” for not standing up for what’s ‘right’ (their opposing view, whichever that is). Both will have ‘numbers’ on their side and accuse HR of being oblivious to facts and incapable with measurement. We’re a convenient whipping boy for frustrated human beings.

HR on the other hand will do its best to mediate, to argue for compromise. and turn the issue back where it belongs – onto managers who are on the spot, who can lead productivity by getting people effectively engaged in getting results and dealing with slackers whatever it takes (and sometimes, yes, it does take offering distractions to clear the mind where in others it requires a strong management hand). Managers alone are in the best position to observe who’s addicted and slipping into a productivity-wasting pattern versus those who are really producing and need the distractions. No HR solution ‘fixes’ this challenge once and for all. It requires day-to-day leadership from every manager at every level.

Is it any wonder HR is criticized by managers who’d rather have an easy solution of blocking rather than have to manage addicted employees and employees who resent big brother cutting them off from Facebook and Twitter? That’s a lot of people who probably realize at some level HR is in an no-win position, but still rationalize their need to blame someone.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Wow, what a series of mistaken assumptions. First, even companies that have cut back in major ways are simultaneously talking about talent shortages. With the need to keep pace through constant innovation so high and growing, they are feeling the need to reduce ’staff’ (meaning, as they see it, widgets who fill assembly-line-like roles) and at the same time seek out and hire more creative, leadership-oriented self-starters who can move things forward. They face the prospect of having to do with fewer ‘headcount’ for two reasons – both tighter economics and shortage of such ‘talent.’ In that case, the ‘talent’ they do entice to join or stay had better be truly valuable and outstanding.

Kellerman’s assumption that there will be less spent on trying to find, recruit and motivate those we formerly thought of as ’staff’ in favor of greater emphasis on rewarding senior executives is ridiculous to put it bluntly. What got us here? And what are we angry about? High senior executive comp programs paying out for poor judgment, lack of insight and lack of listening to up and coming ‘talent’ in their organizations. To put power into the hands of a few executives totally focused on financial performance would reproduce exactly what went wrong – a focus on short term economics to the exclusion of building companies with excellent people throughout who all contribute and give the organization hope of surviving the inevitable departures of a few senior people.

Is it            or       …or both?

EVA or Economic Value Added schemes have tended to justify growing senior executive bonuses out of proportion to overall viability of their organizations – the very things that got us here. They’re not evil by themselves, but in the hands of senior executives who design their payouts for their own benefit, they are fatal. And Emotional Quotient (EQ), better thought of as ‘people skills’ are what has been lacking.

The current economic crisis may make us think about dollar signs everywhere for the moment, but it shouldn’t blind us to the fact that ignoring people and what they think – customers, the public and, yes, staff, too – has been the hallmark of those companies who fail far more than their ignorance of numerical calculations. If they’ve failed the grade on the numbers it’s not because they were spending all their time on people issues. It’s because they forgot that numbers have to make sense to and benefit human beings not just executives. So forget building your hopes around pure ‘bean-counters’ holed up in ivory towers gilded with senior executive privilege. This is exactly the time when we need leaders with a wide, balanced understanding of ALL the issues they face.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

While it remains to be seen whether the current economic crisis will reverse this again, it’s reassuring to know things can improve. In the UK concerns about work stress seemed to be reaching an all time high when I spoke to their national HR group a couple of years ago. Recently the same group noted cautiously that work hours are falling and that this seems to indicate that individuals are exerting more control.

At the same time, Queen’s University’s Industrial Relations Centre highlights an international study of nearly 10,000 executives from the Journal of Applied Psychology (2008, Vol 93, #4, pp.789-805) showing some male and female managers achieve better work-life balance and, moreover, those who do actually have higher career advancement potential.

Interestingly, an HBR book published last May, Total Leadership, by Stewart Friedman, founding Director of Wharton’s Leadership Program, reinforces this,  arguing convincingly that leaders can only improve their work performance by simultaneously improving in four areas of life – work, community, family and self. The subtitle: “Be a better leader; have a better life!”  Balance!! Need I say it again?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Unfortunately most managers worry about justifying layoffs or cuts they believe have to be made. So they emphasize the intensity of the crisis. How else, they reason, will employees recognize that managers don’t want and didn’t expect to take some of the tough actions, but they must? This risks convincing staff the company is a sinking ship they should consider abandoning if they have the chance and that management is weak for not panning better.

A far better course is to communicate it’s business as usual… prudently choosing contingency plans to fit a tough market and trimming carefully in keeping with what everyone knows are growing challenges as we are all too used to hearing. Efforts to minimize layoffs are noticed. The main message has to be confidence, that we have a plan.

You also have to anticipate that as information gets relayed through layers of supervisors their fears and interpretations lean toward the worst more often than in good times. Senior leaders can buffer this by anticipating it, emphasizing the need to give a balanced message and taking the time to answer middle management’s questions in greater detail than usual. These aren’t idle questions, but ones they will need to know how to answer the moment the step back into their departments.

Wrong answers have a greater impact in times of stress and fear than positive ones and are most easily acted on by your best people. They are the ones most likely to make firm decisions quickly… and you don’t want them deciding to take an offer from someone else. Other companies are looking to poach to replace three or four laggards with your superstar… so a lot depends on motivating those you want to keep. Yet many managers secretly believe everyone will be happy just to have a job. That belief will show in their neglect of communicating motivating information even to key people. 

Bookmark and share this post

More »

First, I often am introduced for my success in handling some major mergers, not easy when 80% are known to fail, mostly for "HR" reasons – poor culture fit, bad leadership, etc. What I point out is that most of the layoffs I had to manage – and there were many in the turbulent retail years I held a senior role there… most occurred in good times, not in recessions. Layoffs don’t only occur in tough times nor does hiring only occur in good periods. Both go on all the time. It’s simply a matter that there are a few more in one or the other.

I got the watershed job in my own career history the very day a major city newspaper emblazoned this headline on page 1: Worst Job Market in 20 Years (the height of the 1982 recession). And I’m not the greatest job hunter, being basically a shy, non-marketing type. "If I can do it, you can," is a pretty accurate message.

In most years average turnover is about 15% – one job in six has to be refilled. Most are filled from within… in good times… and then replaced by hiring junior staff. This background rate of turnover doesn’t vary too much in bad times. And when many companies lay off, they inevitably find just afterward that turnover continues. Other companies are grabbing their best people hoping to fill growing gaps with better players; your own company cut to the bone and didn’t anticipate continuing routine departures of people they depend on. They still have to hire.

While it’s true that relatively speaking it will probably take longer to get a job (managers who might average 3 to 5 months searching might need 6 to 9), they will inevitably find work. Those who keep looking will at least! Of course that’s hard on people. No one likes to envision such lengthy periods without pay, but allowing for just a bit of luck, severance packages, outplacement counseling and good planning really do help.

By the time layoff are decided, paperwork processed and job searches are fully underway (usually 2 to 3 months), don’t forget that we’re that much closer to the upturn. Those laid off early may have longer searches, but they’re more fully networked and closer to finding work earlier in the  upturn than those laid off later, who take a few months to get well started. So even though layoffs may continue for a while, it isn’t all doom and gloom for everyone. Those who keep their heads, stay focused and pursue all leads as consistently as they can usually end up with better jobs that the ones they left.

It’s not a time to panic and jump at the very first job offer… unless it’s a great one. Steady, logical work pays off all the way through the process from networking to negotiating the offer. It’s just a bit tougher to stay positive. As always balancing pressures and alternatives is the key to coming out on top.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Doing either of these alone misses the point.

A great example is quoted in a McKinsey Quarterly article (a summary – full article requires free registration). Cisco reduced 8500 positions by using the change to improve their structure, making jobs more interesting and rewarding and thus boosting productivity and engagement of staff. Such combined solutions should always be HR’s goal.

Sounds easy, doesn’t it? Unfortunately it’s rare that both goals can be accomplished in the same time frame, but Cisco is big enough, agile enough and likely had enough redundancy as a result of continuing success to be able to achieve this sort of change. One of the most frustrating arguments I lost as an HR VP was with a division head who intended just such a move, but in the interests of financial goals decided to lay off 200 people now… but only implement the new systems to make the work possible for the remainder about 8 to 12 months down the road. The ultimate cost was a stressed out survivor group who were extremely angry and unhappy. They couldn’t do their jobs effectively and felt like failures constantly. The new systems really never caught up and the company floundered.

The challenge most companies face is they don’t have the spare room in resources or headcount to begin with. They’ve been cutting even during the boom to make profits appear to increase continually as the market always demands. If their profit drive wasn’t based on a balanced strategy – increasing revenues, reducing costs, balancing workload simultaneously all along, it’s unlikely they can suddenly see ways to do it now.

Even Toyota, who have continuously achieved the dual goals is caught short and has had to reduce… but at least they’ve always used contract positions they could eliminate temporarily. That still means people out of work, but at least they are those who understood the precarious nature of their employment, so that trust is not so disrupted as it is in companies who hired full time, permanent staff and now are laying off. When the latter attempt to rehire, many will be suspicious of hollow promises and will be cynical about implied “security.”

Chances are good that organizations like Toyota will be able to cope when there isn’t sufficient work temporarily for their full time team by reducing hours and overtime, holding off on new costs, accepting lower results without feeling the need to strip investments that will affect the future potential for growth and using ’spare’ time of full time staff who aren’t as busy for training and other future-oriented activities, which could well include the sort of organizational and job restructuring that Cisco managed.

The message is these ideas don’t come easily, nor overnight. A single CEO isn’t likely to envision nor be able to order specific changes that “fix” all their problems. It takes good will, many people’s ideas and considerable trial and error to come up with such creative, positive solutions in crises. Those factors don’t come into existence by command in a short time.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

To wit: Talent Acquisition… in Troubled Economic Times” or “How Training Eliminates the Talent Gap… in T.E.T….” Get the idea? So I guess mine are “Effective Leadership… in T.E.T….” or “The Five Easy Skills for Success… in T.E.T….” (Repeating this so often on a page would probably not make Google happy, but apparently readers have an insatiable appetite for it.) This sounds suspiciously like “find the pain and offer to fix it…” plus our natural tendency to want to check every news or blog item that might have something intelligent to say about a situation that defies answers.

Personally I’m sitting on what I own and feel lucky I’m not so leveraged that I have to dump things at today’s loss prices. I’m not enough of a risk taker to go get a big loan and buy up what look like really good bargains at the moment, but I believe the market will come back… just no idea when.

The bottom line for leadership, though, is that we need to be better every day, rain or shine, good times or bad. It’s consistency that wins in the end, not temporary panic fixes. If we wait for “T.E.T.” to get serious about doing the right things, we’re missing a lot of boats along the way. Ah, human nature.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

I’d said there are times when command and control is still the most appropriate style – and used an example of a sinking ship where you want the person who knows best what to do to assume control and direct the best actions for everyone, the more firmly the better – no panic, life jackets, lifeboats, line up here!

The coach trainer insisted that even on the Titanic, if the captain had coached, everyone might have been saved. In fact, it would undoubtedly have led to a better outcome if the captain had coached the crew sufficiently before the emergency so they knew how to take charge, but I can’t honestly see the opportunity to coach once the iceberg was hit. If you think about the coaching process and questions, is it really an appropriate time to ask people “how’s it going, what do you really want, what should our strategy be, what needs to be different and what will we do now?” Or do you hope the crew lines people up firmly, guides them into lifeboats and tells them how to launch?

The one antidote to panic is clear confidence from a leader who remains calm and balanced and seems to know what to do when you don’t. This is true for any situation, but in true emergencies, it can take a pretty directive leader to convince people. Once things are underway, you hope individuals will take initiative and you may be able to coach that once everyone’s in boats and away, but in those first stages of crisis finding the right balance of command first before coaching seems wisest.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

He kicked off with the emphasis on why paying attention to leadership is becoming so much more important – because organizations, the challenges they face and the tasks of managing and leading them have become so much more complex. He proceeded to virtually itemize the same five key elements I build on.
Most striking of all, he very much emphasized the importance of leaders remaining “calm” (to use his term) in the face of the daily onslaught of challenges we now face. In other words, developing and maintaining the skills of balance in the midst of furious activity ended up being the point he stressed more than any other. I couldn’t agree more.

And balance, of course, involves including all the elements that must be balanced together so you don’t get blindsided by something you’ve forgotten about… like people’s attitudes and engagement, for instance, while you are nonetheless pushing for results. “Both/and” becomes a big challenge of complexity that many managers struggle with. Practice makes perfect. It was great to hear a CEO of a major organization put it in such a “must have, every day” light!

Bookmark and share this post

More »