And in the same newscast, the lead item was government approval of a sporting workplace in which the main objective is for one employee to batter another as brutally as possible, albeit within rules that prevent the use of lethal weapons, but in ways virtually guaranteed to result in at least a few deaths – a sport where doctors have called for a nationwide ban. What happened to the new Workplace Violence and Harassment legislation, let alone Health and Safety laws? Don’t workplace rules say you have to provide a shield so employees never come into contact with dangerous moving parts? Can you see inspectors ordering a screen between battling competitors in such a violent sport?

The Romans set up rules for gladiators, and bullfights and cockfights follow rules as well, but we wouldn’t really want to call any of those safety rules, so let’s ignore the argument that there are rules that make this safe. Safer than handing out swords for sure, but really.

The Romans used their ‘games’ to divert and pacify unruly citizenry during tough economic times. It cost their governors a lot of money to run them, but apparently the results were worth it. We seem to have done one better since MMA, so-called Mixed Martial Arts combat (where’s the Art?), will be a source of revenue for promoters and tax-collectors. How does that make it OK that someone else’s sons will be given the “opportunity” to beat each other unmercifully? Interesting that we still won’t let those same young men ride to their combats on motorcycles without wearing helmets or in cars without seat belts fastened, but we suspend virtually all normal safety rules for sport.

My point? I can’t answer whether it is completely right or wrong in the grand scheme of things to let youth who want to beat each other do so under some sort of supervision. We know from YouTube it happens spontaneously, without rules. Perhaps they would find more dangerous ways of doing the same if left on their own. But we have laws in other areas to try to prevent as many people as possible doing dangerous things to themselves or others. Maybe this is a small safety valve for the aggressiveness that would otherwise bubble over somewhere else in society as it seemed for the Romans. Maybe, but reliable studies show at least with children that seeing violence generally results in desensitization and more violent behavior.

Perhaps the larger question is whether we will ever raise a generation of leaders who stand for a better solution, one that protects everyone while still achieving economic objectives, that engages workers so they feel satisfaction not the desire to strike out. This has certainly become the strategic goal of many companies that are doing well on a grand scale. Perhaps there will always be rogue CEOs who encourage harassment and battering of employees verbally or otherwise as a means to get rich and MMA is just one limited, perhaps minor, example. But isn’t there some hope that we will someday be better than this?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Legitimate protestors are stuck in a puzzling situation. They can continue to hold marches during G20 meetings and head toward the barriers, thus providing mass cover in which a handful of criminal agitators can hide and do maximum damage. They thereby guarantee no one hears their messages. Or a better solution might well be to hold as big a rally as possible a week or so prior to a G20 or G8 in a safe location, where organizers could video-record sensible statements of protest and logical arguments and alternatives to give to leaders ahead of the meetings when they might make a point. Vandals rarely show up where there’s nothing to vandalize.

There would be less mass media coverage, but the messages wouldn’t be lost in violence and attempted baiting of police. Larger numbers would turn out since additional protesters wouldn’t fear arrest or violence. It would demonstrate how many people are concerned about alternate solutions and would likely get more reasoned attention from leaders instead of being delivered at a time when their attention is fully occupied with deals the protestors don’t want made. Would it work? At least as well as current mangled efforts. Can anyone say clearly from what we saw on TV what the messages are? Anything has to be more understandable than that.

At least in HR we have research that proves counter-intuitive approaches are typically superior.

In day-to-day HR, for example, many line managers hate whatever pay system is in place because they don’t understand the core purpose is fair pay equity among employees and huge increases are counter-productive to their objectives. What they see is they want to pay their best people more and evil HR stands in the way. If every manager does this it will create a race to the top, extremely high pay for everyone, disengaging both top and mediocre employees. (Wait, isn’t that what’s happening with CEO pay, especially in the US where publishing pay scales has the opposite of its intended effect.) Second, based on subjective evaluations of who is ‘best,’ other employees will (and do) become severely upset unless their pay is also raised nearly as much. oops, more of the same problem.

And, third, of course, they pay no attention whatsoever to the tons of research showing that money isn’t the prime motivator – recognition is. Yet many managers continue year after year to say hardly a thank you, let alone a positively reinforcing ‘good work’ despite the fact this free option has been shown to have a far greater effect on results than dangerously raising pay, expectations, claims of favoritism and all the problems unmanaged pay systems create. As to pay, if employees at Toyota happily produce over a million profit-improving suggestions per year for about $50 t0 $100 each, why do we think big bucks are needed to motivate our people?

But counter-intuitive works in more situations than even I thought. At the G20 demonstrations in Toronto I got a front row seat (and picture above) with riot-garbed police at the foot of my downtown driveway. They pushed about 50 demonstrators down our street, past our front door to the main intersection where they promptly sat down and continued taunting police. The officers stood and waited about 20 minutes. and then. just walked away (taking time to drink bottled water from their back up vans and shed their helmets to wipe their brows in front of thirsty protesters). Then they marched back to the government buildings at the other end of the street that they’d been driving the protesters away from. The result – about 5 of the 50 protesters followed them and the rest went home. Bored, tired, dry and uninjured, they’d failed to provoke an incident and gave up.

I have to say I was stunned. I’m not sure what I expected, but in retrospect it all makes the perfect kind of counter-intuitive sense I routinely promote. Show the strength, don’t use it and it’s more effective than bashing people. Kudos to the Toronto Police Service who mostly trained and then coordinated the 15,000 officers it took to maintain this kind of order and kudos to the individual officers who were willing to follow the plan. Now if protesters and G20 planners would learn equally futuristic management, we could avoid spending much of the $1.4 billion this security exercise reportedly cost.

How stupid did planners have to be to put a G20 meeting in a downtown filled with banks and ‘capitalist’ shops with plate glass windows begging to be broken and many congested streets, vehicles and transit that are difficult to protect. Duh?! We know violence has marked every G8/G20 in memory.

With the danger zone placed squarely in downtown police have three choices – massive presence and arrests to move people away, however briefly; no presence, which would simply be an OK to throw everything including Molotov cocktails at whatever anarchists want; or a moderate presence, which would result in officers and bystanders injured in repeated scuffles and set up for a pitched battle at the perimeter fences with even more injuries and possibly even loss of life as we’ve seen in the past. What choice is there, but the former, which takes massive coordination, but provides maximum physical protection for leaders and demonstrators alike. No one wants a police state, least of all in your home town, but for 2 days G20 planners didn’t leave any of us much choice. It’s not a bad reminder of what our country could be like if we don’t manage sensibly. If you have to do something, do it wholeheartedly. and get it over with and go home. It was messy, but the least violence G-meeting in history I expect.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

But it’s been pointed out to me in a recent consulting assignment that some people of my, ahem, advanced age are just lucky to have been ‘lucky’ to have been through tough times before. We can take it as business as usual to a degree while younger managers are genuinely shocked and more financially hurt (so this young exec insisted), especially if they`re young enough to have avoided tight times either having come of age since 1991 or having missed being hit in that somewhat milder climate.

Apparently even a lot of my age group missed those earlier setbacks because audiences of all ages continue to be flummoxed by today`s crunch and that continues despite possibly premature rumors of an upturn. My friends at Verity International once again assembled an interesting panel of experts (recording is here) to comment – Citibank being one that certainly got caught more than some, and Ford being one that was far more prepared than many. Yet no one is untouched. Add to the panel a devil`s advocate talk show host who claims we should all get off our duffs and make hay while the rest are lagging and a European consulting executive who`s seen a wider perspective and you have a competent mix… one might believe. Or do you have just a bunch of individual views from where each of them sits. Is there a common thread?

The fact is that downturns always benefit someone. Sometimes it’s the lucky – people who happen to have just sold major assets before the crash and have cash to buy up lagging operations that will help them boost their business when thing improve. Sometimes it’s the sensible – people who have watched their budgets all along and don’t have to lay off masses of people. There’s no doubt that 15 years of rising markets encourages people to take risks they shouldn’t. It’s understandable that in good times many fear being left behind if they don’t take those risks… but we all need to keep an eye out for bad weather and what we can offload when ship starts to sink.

Of course the talk show host was in his glory since bad news makes for good media interest and lambasting ‘laziness’ is easy when everyone’s already down in the dumps. Are North Americans lazy compared to others? Not if you note the ever-increasing stress levels and work hours we put in. But perhaps we’re not putting them in the right places as the world changes and we no longer rule on technology and scientific advances as we once did.

Are we letting our kids get lazy? Maybe, but again, as soon as they hit their 20s they mostly develop lots of reasons to work hard. Certainly we’ve encouraged a sense of entitlement. The same young exec who berated me for being a fat-cat boomer with money socked away to burn noted that young guys like him (about 25) have reason to be afraid they might lose the house, the two fancy cars, the cottage, the boat, the clubs and all that other ‘must-have’ stuff they have a right to go after (on credit). Apparently the banks, in selling everyone on credit only too successfully, drank that kool-aid themselves and have taken their customers down with them.

Unfortunately I know all too many boomers who are caught in the same mess and are finding it difficult to dig out. But having said that I also have acquaintances who have faced and overcome bankruptcies or near-bankruptcies in the past and know that belt-tightening, while not fun, does work. My heart goes out to those stuck right now, but it’s hard to know who’s on a right or wrong track. Major layoffs demoralize staff and hurt future retention and results, but failing to lay off can drag down results, share prices, and pension investments. Finding a balance and working hard is the inevitable result either way. Perhaps that’s something we need bad times to teach periodically as so many don’t seem to learn any other way. It’s the psychology of infallibility for sure that creates such cataclysmic cycles. Can we learn to smooth out our human nature and stay balanced better in future over the long haul? It was an interesting question that none of the panelists quite addressed directly.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Several recent developments suggest blogging is far from dying, despite those who still see it as a passing fad or as being replaced by twitter. BNet has started up with a massive volume of email alerts you can sign up for, pointing to blogs   and information from Harvard B-School and many other business sources – a true aggregator of business/management information. Is it over-kill?

Although none of us is sure we need all the stuff, it’s amazing how interesting the headlines can be. One case in point for me was yesterdays alert pointing to a blog by former HBS President Rosabeth Moss Kanter – the Top 10 Ways to Find Joy at Work – something many of us could use more of. One of the most useful things on top blogs is the comment section.

A similar approach is being taken by Fast Company with it’s formerly occasional newsletters. It will be interesting to see if daily, yes daily, newsletters will turn people off or attract more readers. Every site is looking for the magic formula. At least when it arrives every day I feel free to ditch it if I’m too busy, knowing that I’m only hours away from my next fix. Interestingly I often click because of the subject line, but find other article of more interest when I get there.

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 »

Next Human Capital Institute Webcast on Talent Acquisition –
Title:   Is the Leadership Hiring Problem Over?
When:    Tuesday, Apr 21 2009 / 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM ET
Presented By:    Dave Crisp , CEO , Crisp Strategies
Fee: Free – on a first come, first serve basis
While the economy may have extended the projected leadership gap for a short time as many Boomers un-retire, employers will still face labor shortages in many areas of their companies, most notably among their executive team. Why? Generation X, those employees with the next amount of experience on the job, are a smaller population and just don’t have enough people to fill the seats being vacated by Boomers.
So how should an organization prepare itself for this gap? The strategies include operating leaner organizations with less management, dramatically improving Boomer hiring techniques and vigorous leadership development practices to "grow" younger workers. Discovering which approach- or developing a new one- will be the focus of this webcast.

So, for anyone interested in HR and Talent Management, registration is here.

The genesis of this, of course, is the many knee-jerk reactions some observers inevitably have to any crisis. For some current job losses seem to mean it’s a buyers market, the hiring crunch is over. With so many out of work, they reason, companies can hire whomever they need, maybe even at bargain basement prices. The fact is it’s harder than ever to get leaders who can help bail us out of this mess.

We need more leaders, not only due to retirements (and, yes, some of those are being postponed, but only temporarily), but also because flatter, widely dispersed organizations and the need for more innovation require more people with leadership skills than ever before. People are available, but the right skills aren’t.

This is one of many assumptions people leap to in times of distress. We’ve commented on some others – like believing that now we need financial wizards to save us. They got us into the mess, don’t forget, so why would we think they’ll fix it?

Another mistake is thinking ‘in tough times we need tough leaders.’ This one isn’t entirely wrong, just dangerously misinterpreted by many. The problem is in the word tough. We’re right enough to say ‘when the going gets tough, the tough get going,’ but tough has many meanings. Look at Hitler versus Churchill. Both tough. Hitler was admired by many before the War. in the US, in England, sadly in Germany. very widely because he took tough steps to bail his country out of the Depression. Observers failed to pay much attention to his methods, however. When the inevitable resulted, we needed a different type of toughness to overcome this earlier mistake.

Good people can be tough, too, but in today’s crisis there is a tendency once again to look at the wrong kind of ‘tough guys’ who undertake dramatic layoffs and cut programs, who ‘make the tough decisions.’ Well, let’s not forget that sometimes the tough decisions are to support your people when it costs something to do it. What makes leadership a challenge is that you have to constantly weigh difficult choices and try to make the best ones, not necessarily popular with your audience and not necessarily just penalizing the less powerful players.

What appears ‘tough’ to one, may in fact be the easy choice, what everyone else is doing. Leadership is taking all the factors into account, including how short term this recession might be in retrospect, and choosing the higher path, not just the expedient one. A number of CEOs have made the effort to save cost without layoffs, choosing instead to offer leaves, unpaid vacation extensions, time-sharing of reduced hours, re-assignment to training or neglected maintenance tasks and so forth, to name only a few options.

We have to hope that facing a crisis is always taken as a chance for everyone to learn greater leadership skills by pitching in to save each other. People rise to the occasion and come up with creative solutions if they are supported and encouraged. Those who unnecessarily lay off instead will be the losers in the long run as they discover the leadership hiring crisis is far from over!

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 »

The first knee-jerk reaction in many companies is serious lay-offs. In good times these would generally please stock analysts because they seem to cut the cost base and therefore should increase profits, but when they’re done in tough times, they’re more of a last grasp at survival and won’t have that positive effect. Moreover, they cost a lot – a sudden cash  outflow for severance and notice pay… and you inevitably lose a number of excellent people. You can’t identify, nor can you automatically be sure you’re removing, the so-called ‘deadwood’ (lovely way to refer to staff), right?

So you end up short staffed in some areas and still over-staffed for the moment in others. You can’t simply shuffle the extras into the gaps. It never quite works out as you want or anticipate. Even before the inevitable upturn comes you have to madly try to hire great replacements just when everyone else is trying, too. Cost savings haven’t even begun by this time because you’re still paying for terminations and now you’ve got to pay more to hire. Especially this time we’re going to come out into a very tight hiring market due to boomer retirements and the massively growing need for better leadership for flatter, more dispersed organizations. And by the way, no one will trust you due to massive layoff hangover.

So what should you do? I’m all for biting the bullet in a number of ways. Beef up performance discussions and use them as a basis for carefully chosen lay-offs on a much smaller scale. Two or three months of performance focus usually identifies and justifies focused departures. Don’t be so sure a big across-the-board cut now is the answer. Focus more on performance and positioning people for better performance when things start to turn so you’re early out of the gate with better leaders and better teams revved up to succeed against weakened competitors. Spend some money on training the right people. Use the time you should have ’spare’ from lesser workloads. Don’t fill everyone’s time with scurrying to find cuts or justify not cutting in their areas. You’ll just stress them and tire them out for when you need them at full speed in the upturn.

When things start to pick up, don’t automatically start hiring. Use your improved skills to absorb the work through increased productivity – gaps that weaker companies have to fill by rapid hiring and the mistakes that they will inevitably make as a result. You can always hire when the burst of panic hiring is waning and people who took the first job that came along are becoming dissatisfied.

Does this paint a picture? Those companies that don’t react with panic either in the down- or the upturns have a much greater chance of doing things better than the competition. A recession can be a golden opportunity to position yourselves for a far more secure future. But, of course, most companies argue that this is all very logical, they just can’t. Sadly, for some that’s true, but for others, they just aren’t looking at the logical time frames that such relatively slow HR processes inevitably take. If layoffs today meant cost-savings tomorrow morning, panic might work. But in the months these things take to roll out, times will start to change. Don’t get caught like so many rolling with exactly the wrong waves at the wrong moments.

Does this sound familiar? Successful organizations don’t manage today, they manage tomorrow. A little planning and courage go a long way toward making better leadership.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Many have argued unions have served their purpose and are no longer needed in our modern era because employees have all the rights they should expect. Yet bullying, arbitrary terminations and capricious management decisions continue to occur in most organizations.

I’m relatively a conservative who would sometimes take a dim view of this. However there is no doubt, not a shadow, that there is still room for employees to be increasingly involved in decisions and management of organizations. How this happens will be very important. This ruling allows it to evolve over a long period of time, through lengthy and expensive court challenges that will define a further new era in employee involvement. Although costly for the few “bad actors” who will be involved directly, this way of staging change “slowly, but surely” should actually prove beneficial, far better than some sudden leap to new legislation.

Whatever your view on this, you might want to take a look at this article by Queen’s law professor, Kevin Banks, which concisely explains how the Canadian Supreme Court has determined to open up labor laws to further, perhaps endless, challenges that unions can now undertake to extend worker rights.

The upshot is to give added impetus to what HR managers have been saying for decades – you get the unions you deserve if you act poorly, and you prevent third party involvement if you proactively ensure your employees are involved, engaged and consulted. This will slowly drive less HR-conscious companies to get with the program and start involving people more broadly. Stats show this actually pays off in far superior results, but if that carrot hasn’t provided enough incentive, this will certainly continue the “stick” threat toward much deeper and more complete implementation of effective practices.

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 »

This raises tons of questions. How many companies at this point even have Chief HR Officers for instance? What are the priorities – people or some poorly understood marketing or recruiting tool? More to the point, where should they do be to be successful and sustain their people through these turbulent times?

In this start-up period, while we figure out the place for Social Networking in business, we need to remember we can’t do everything. There’s a growing need to understand blogging and other Web 2.0 and 3.0 options – what can they do, what does it take and what are the best ways to use or not use this vast array. Can we have it in simple terms – and perhaps even more importantly, what do they replace or what do we drop to fit them in?

I just heard a marketing guru who successfully specializes in getting PR at every turn say, “I’ve got a blog; I have no idea why, but they say you have to have one, so I got one.” He was articulate and to the point about what other things you need to do to boost PR, but here he was clearly lost – and not even touching on newer social networking alternatives.

The best advice this past week came from VP, Susan Van Klink, of Select Minds (www.SelectMinds.com) where they specialize Social Networking tools for use within companies to get employees sharing information and networking better. She advises: avoid knee-jerk reactions and watch security.

Don’t ban employees from blogging and networking, but help them understand company rules still make sense – pay attention to confidentiality of information, the fact your words will live forever on the Internet (and may reflect badly on both you and the company) and don’t get hooked into something you haven’t thought through from a security point of view, whether individual identity or leaking company information might be the issue. In general, proceed… but watch and think first, cautiously and with small steps till you have a feel for where things are going. If you don’t have time for much, let others make the mistakes while systems and approaches shake out. Look for the simpler, single, proven uses.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Of course this goes on nearly everywhere in one form or another. It’s just that hiring managers mostly don’t mention their pet beliefs in their job ads. When I talk to groups of executives in job search I use my own case of being screened out of some jobs because I never played football or hockey well. I was terrible at basketball. I can’t run due to asthma. Scrawny as a kid, I went on to squash and swimming and grew to appreciate the team sports I missed sometimes taught great leadership lessons… though they also sometimes taught a sort of elitism that excludes a wide range of people as in the vegetarian example. No specific experience or lack by itself dictates later job results. It’s what people do job-wise that counts.

Today, for the moment, employers generally can’t be quite so prejudicial though many still subconsciously apply their beliefs for far less moral reasons. They really should look instead at the work an applicant can deliver and their motivation to do the work. Unless it’s for a job playing football or working for a company that makes it’s living selling vegetarian, then why are these relevant? In the grand scheme it doesn’t matter. Unless the number of vegan owners far exceeds their percentage in the workforce there will always be jobs for meat eaters.

Still, raising this low impact question highlights a raft of related issues managers should ponder when making decisions.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

John’s logic and common sense make you wonder how these managers get to where they are. Recent comments about Bob Nardelli, echoing others a year before his outrageous severance package, make it obvious why that outcome was inevitable – and make you wonder why Chrysler thinks he might work out there. It’s only a matter of time for guys like this. The bigger question is whether they will take down the entire company – a real possibility in this case. But, still, how do they get there to begin with? This one has to make you question the legacy of Jack Welch, Nardelli’s former CEO and a GE Board that would even let him get to the level of consideration.

One problem is the immense power we accord the role of "boss" in any organization. Thousands of bosses at every level lament they can’t fire anyone because of union rules, legal protection and other impediments to free-wheeling lashing out. They go through life frustrated, yet it’s often with these bosses specifically that somehow everyone feels punished… and not just the weak or bad ones, but almost everyone working for them.

Bad bosses create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of their best employees leave because they can and they hate where they are. The boss may not be able to fire the bad ones, but finds plenty of ways to force the good to leave. The remainder tend to be exactly those the boss deserves, complains about and feels justified in persecuting and ordering about. It becomes a reinforcing downward spiral into misery, minimal effort and poor results.

Only when a company builds a culture that develops good and refuses to tolerate bad behavior will we see this change. Developing positive habits in how people are treated isn’t difficult, but everyone has to make it a priority. Then the bad employees, including the bad managers, leave because they are passed over, can’t get a foothold and don’t want to be faced daily with the fact they don’t fit.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

As a former Senior VP of Human Resources for a 70,000 person national retail chain and now a coach, consultant and speaker on leadership skills, I’ve read and surveyed a wide range of work in the area. Both reading the book and hearing the authors present, I was struck by how much territory they covered in a very readable-sized work.

They begin with a solid summary of what leadership is, how it feels and how most people get there and they go on to identify what is truly unique about one particular leadership approach – the one most common among Canadians. This distinguishes and gives us an identity we seem to have almost given up searching for. Others will benefit by looking at how they’ve analyzed this one brand and examining how their own may differ, whether it’s stronger or could stand to borrow features.

If they are correct that Canadian leadership skills are appreciated, respected and admired by many around the world, as other nationals have told them, this makes clear why. Leadership is the most complex and challenging human activity – and the most powerful force for change. Our style leans toward combining people’s strengths and recognizes that the overall best comes from a collaborative approach, where no one person (or one country’s approach) can claim to be the best alone. We specialize in seeking a broader understanding of what’s needed for ultimate success. Too often leaders err by insisting on finding a single "best" when the fact is we need cooperation more than unilateral rule.

Without detailing too much, they make an excellent distinction between those who feel innately "called to lead" and the majority who fall into such roles "accidentally." From there it’s easy to see that both groups need development. Even for those who feel innately called the actual skills of leading don’t come naturally. They note that most will say they got no training at all until they reached the workforce and were actually promoted to supervise. Even then, many receive only minimal support, coaching or programmed assistance. The sad fact is that even today, when so much is written about truly exploding needs for more leadership, we often assume by then people either know, aren’t trainable or should be able to learn on their own.

The authors call for a national approach that could benefit any country. They emphasize the need to educate and develop more effective leaders from an earlier age right on through to the most senior. They cite successes in improving education elsewhere as great examples of how wide consultation can be translated into consistent action over many decades to deepen and improve even such complex areas as this. And they point out what should be obvious to us all, that if the world does not step up to this challenge and strengthen leadership everywhere we will miss perhaps our only opportunity to truly build the world we all want to live in.

Bookmark and share this post

More »