The principles apply directly to HR strategy. Oddly, just recently, one of the many HR/Learning & Development blogs out there published “Four tips for Effective Leadership,” namely: Be counterintuitive, live comfortably in gray areas, learn by doing and exercise soft skills – exactly what Duggan points to with his great strategists. Strategy isn’t arrived at by ‘planning’ in the sense of laying out exact steps and stages with time lines and benchmarks. Napoleon and the others ‘put their teams in motion,’ ‘looked for small battles they could win decisively,’ ’stuck to the course with firm resolution,’ and learned to evolve strategies as they went rather than work them out in detail beforehand.

Reading these, I realized that, yes, most successes I ran into along the way evolved ‘in the midst of action’ (a phrase I also recognized from a Zen master talking about finding your way calmly ‘in the midst of action’). Does this apply to HR? My former company got into elearning early and heavily, with great results, because we were asked to look at ‘expert systems’ that the CEO saw at a conference (a different computer technology) and we jumped to use the budget and just get going, without being in the least sure where we were headed, but seeing some possibilities in using technical systems to leverage more people learning more things.

If we’d waited for our IT process that called for developing a technical plan in detail, with projected costs three to five years out, we’d never have gotten off the ground. Yet planning is valuable. In the words of Eisenhower, the top allied General of WWII, “Plans are nothing, planning is everything.” The difference, in other words, is active versus passive. Get going, planning as you go, through the unexpected twists and uncertainties – don’t wait for “a plan” designed to resolve something you think may happen – it won’t.

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 »

On CLO Magazine’s blog, the question came up, “why aren’t there more people willing to step up to front line leadership?” One commenter observed, we don’t train enough. True, but I wrote this:

“I agree that we rarely teach practical leadership skills when we promote people or prepare them for promotion. We throw them in and let them sink or swim… and then some time later we try to teach them. In fact the skills have to be learned on the job with a coach (the boss, if the boss has leadership skills, which 80% don’t according to many surveys).

“However I think a growing factor today is that we expect the leaders to make sure the work is done even if they have to do it themselves – no excuses – do it or you’re out, so taking on leadership is taking on an unbelievable workload… still with no training on how to get others cooperating in getting it done. Sound like a good deal? Here, you be leader, you do all the work,  we won’t show you how to successfully delegate… and then maybe we’ll fire you… in many states ‘at will’ with no recourse or severance… and you’ll be totally humiliated in the process most likely. Wow. I’ll take that risk. I’m exaggerating… slightly, but there are lots of organizations who do this to at least some of their promoted managers. Any wonder it scares people off?

“We desperately need to remedy this, but it seems to be one leader at a time and it starts with taking a brutally honest look at what those we promote are expected to do.”

This certainly doesn’t apply to every situation or organization, but not only is little training provided to actual managers, very few believe in trying to help potential leaders learn the skills BEFORE they are promoted. Often I see leaders who are being offered training or coaching where it is ‘too little, too late.’ They’ve already alienated their teams or at least fallen into patterns that aren’t highly productive and now have a hard time changing. It only really became clear answering this question and realizing that I was trying to be bluntly honest. If nothing else I think it illustrates the benefits of asking ourselves these questions via blogs and other means. Self-examination certainly reveals what we need to fix. I’m sure I’ve been as guilty as many when I didn’t provide training BEFORE it was needed.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Senior GM execs had a private elevator key that allowed them to get from their guarded top floor suite to their private garage without stopping at any other floors to let anyone on, Rattner notes as a typical example. Perhaps not quite as obviously dreadful as flying in private corporate jets to ask the President for bailout money, but maybe more significant. At least one can argue the economic value of a corporate plane – sort of.

Cutting oneself off from team members and from their casual input on a day-to-day basis, even as much as one might pick up in an elevator ride, is deadly to leadership. Worse, it reinforces your status as untouchable by rank and file. The message is clear – don’t tell us anything, we’re not interested. If relationships never develop on any sort of casual basis, people will hesitate and decide not to approach you about things they worry might be important, but not important enough to risk embarrassment if you turn away or get annoyed.

Not everyone fears speaking to a senior executive just because of their title, but many do. Seeing others engage in casual conversation helps everyone feel OK about it, too. Every leader has to constantly work toward encouraging all sorts of comments. It doesn’t just happen by accident that people keep their leaders up to date. So the private key isn’t just a symbol, but one more actual roadblock that only the worst sort of leaders set up.

Hannibal drank from puddles alongside his troops; Genghis Khan rode with them. No one doubted who was in charge, and you can bet they talked. If you’re afraid to talk to your boss about every day work stuff, you can bet most others including his or her highest lieutenants are, too – so nothing is getting through. Time to be dusting off the resume.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Oops, that’s an article I have to read! It didn’t take long to find (link above), but, even double-spaced, 54 pages isn’t an easy-to-digest document. This is a great example of why leadership is so often misunderstood.

The key is to understand that when someone misses the point in an article it sometimes helps reinforce the real story when you go dig it out. This is a point I’ve continually tried to make and it comes into very clear focus when you dissect this study.

The researchers, themselves, are very, very clear about several things. 53% of   leadership impact comes from one group of skills, which they describe as follows:

“The first and most important factor is a general factor, explaining 53% of the
variation in the ratings.  All individual characteristics [emphasis mine] load positively on this factor, ranging from a loading for “integrity” of 0.33 to a loading for “efficiency” of 0.68. It is natural, therefore, to interpret this factor as capturing general talent or ability.” And THEN they go on to identify the second most important factor, which explains 20% of leadership results and is much more difficult to understand. It contrasts warm, team-builders with hard-driving, conscientious types who follow through details and gives preference to the latter for achieving results.

By highlighting what they said, I’m prefiguring the better conclusion. We know from many studies that the most important work trait among the so-called “Big Five” personality characteristics is ‘conscientiousness.’ We also know it’s not the only contributing factor to success. To be highly effective as a leader or in any other challenge involving people, the best results come from having a complex of skills WORKING TOGETHER.

Duh, that means the best solution is NOT the ‘either/or’ one. If you have a choice of only one skill set, of course select the hard-driving, one-man-band, the charismatic if possible, the analytic person who dishes out orders. provided they have one even more important element from that group – they’re consistent. If you want the best results, however, find someone with ALL the contributing skills in a good balance. an ‘all rounder,’ a leader who also coaches and builds effective teams and relationships in addition to these. Get it? Look for the #1 skill set, not the #2 where, if you have to make a choice, you should absolutely pick the hard-driver over the warm team-builder.

Why is it so darn hard for reporters of good research to pick out the key fact not the most explosive? Every leader, to be worthy of the basic name, must drive hard toward the end goals. They need passion and constant attention to details. but the best leaders, the very best, go beyond only that to add in the team-building, coaching abilities. If you can’t find the best, settle for the drive, but don’t suggest those traits are the only ones that count. Don’t make it either/or.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

These are powerful, important questions that we’re finally beginning to see asked and answered more often. I like this practical answer at Chief Learning Officer magazine online. But it’s important to understand the role employees play and what anyone can do about it.

This came to mind again with a phone call from a colleague wanting to know what makes a good leader and venting about two hours they’d just spent listening to a manager gripe about their CEO in a small company. “The boss is selfish, lazy, uninterested in anyone’s ideas for improvements,” went the complaint, “My great talents aren’t being used; I’m only staying for the money.” Sound familiar? We’re told about half of all employees or more feel this way much of the time.

In varying degrees we hear this everywhere. I’ve quoted Bob Eichinger of Lominger/Korn Ferry before – that only about 18% of managers have the key people skills for leading and developing others, that these skills fall in the lowest 20% of skills among most managers. Yet, to answer my friend’s question about what leadership is, people skills ARE leadership, so the scarcity of them indicates exactly how scarce effective leadership is in organizations. If we could raise that just 10% or 15% across the board, results would skyrocket.

Once a company grows beyond about 25 to 50 employees in size, employees can no longer be simply extensions of the leaders abilities. Until then a really hardworking boss can probably get around and tell each employee exactly what to do and how every day. Above that size the futility of that should be obvious. Employees have to be empowered and entrusted to take initiative and do things the boss hasn’t specifically ordered or blessed, so the leader’s role becomes encouraging, stimulating creativity, coordinating and supporting initiative where it makes sense – a very different job than controlling every activity day by day.

We shouldn’t be vilifying weak leaders as much as asking ourselves how best to improve their skills and help them transition from command and control styles to coaching and developing. Companies, even many of the biggest and best funded, some of whom spend millions on leadership training, are doing a lousy job of this in the main. How else to account for the finding that 82% of leaders lack the most critical skills for their roles. Hopefully the blizzard of articles and books on what it takes to get results with people will start to make a dent in that gap.

More on this in future posts.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Author, David Brooks, cites interesting research showing that CEOs of today’s successful companies lack people skills, extraversion, openness and social agreeableness in study after study. that what distinguishes most is emotional stability and conscientiousness (these are ‘the Big Five’ that psychologists generally agree define personalities). He suggests charisma isn’t valuable, as Jim Collins showed in Good to Great, but in doing so he mixes apples and oranges.

First, it confirms my assertion that many of today’s large organization CEOs lack the skills they will need to lead with utmost effectiveness especially in the coming years of a new type of worker. That’s what Collins is getting at, too. He found only a handful of big company CEOs had taken their companies from Good to Great and kept them there. However, Collins’ findings reinforce that you need openness and sociability (though perhaps not extraversion) to reach the most successful CEO level – to lead effective teams. Quiet team-builders emerged as his preferred model and I agree.

What the other research confirms is what Collins also found – that most sizable company CEOs today are OK, but not superstars. It’s not their lack of charisma (Collins’ winners didn’t have it either), but more importantly lack of ability to build teams. Most are detail-oriented drivers who keep everyone’s nose to the grindstone where more open, creative solutions would be better. The grindstone approach keeps things going and creates incremental improvement, but doesn’t help things take off. Brooks notes that, but equates Collins’ top leaders with the grinders, which isn’t accurate.

All in all, as we struggle to get clarity about how top leaders should actually look, we find few companies yet understand it well enough to make the best choices. And that may be due to the fact that we have years of grinders lingering at the top choosing people like themselves. These are ’safe’ candidates, without a lot of personality actually, unlike the major characters that bring together all the right skills like Kelleher of Southwest Airlines, Walton of Wal-mart, Welch of GE and other highly individual, but interesting styles.

Just because the bulk of OK companies today are run by ‘grinders’ (if I can call them that somewhat unfairly because most bring something more than that, just not enough more), that doesn’t mean this is what companies SHOULD look for. There is a better model. Collins got it right. We need to figure out how to develop it and then we need to start hiring for those qualities.

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 »

Kenneth is an HR systems guy who says he totally agrees with Beatty that “HR fails to understand the real link between productivity and people.” Here’s someone who, like Beatty, presumably works with HR people in large organizations blandly continuing the stereotype and broad-brushing ‘all’ HR.

My point? If HR doesn’t start to stand up and correct these mistaken, but all-day-every-day, comments we will truly be the failures so many already take for granted. It’s because of such standard assumptions that HR has such an uphill battle for budget, resources, great people and ‘a seat at the table.’ It’s fine that some individuals have spectacularly overcome these, but we’re doing a disservice to other professionals in our field if we don’t speak up whenever and wherever this myth is propagated.

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 »

There are currently two opinions commonly published about HR. First, that most people in it are useless, especially at understanding, justifying their cost/value or contributing to results in their organizations. Second, the growing alternative view, like much of what Jon collected, that while most HR people are useless, it’s neither entirely their fault nor true of all since some actually reach the level of valuable, measured proof of strategic contribution.

I argue there’s a third view that we should hear a lot more about. that HR is making a valuable contribution almost everywhere, but only to the extent they’re allowed, assisted and supported by the rest of the team. (Try running your organization without any.) Consider that HR is largely doing what it is told and empowered to do by more senior organization leaders who control what HR is paid (typically less than most functions), who’s appointed (qualified. or not), what it’s entitled to do (mostly essential administrative stuff with a smattering of more strategic items ‘if there’s time’) and who listens when HR has something to contribute.

Instead of solving these problems, most people seem content to stand back and blame HR for not ‘proving its value’ as if there isn’t already a mountain of scientific evidence showing that the impact of doing HR well is enormous (Pfeffer’s work offers great examples). We should be talking about how to focus what we know can be done to fit our specific organizations not blaming the guys in the middle who are striving to do what they can with the resources they’re given. Pile on is not constructive.

I’ll expand later, but for now let’s make one thing clear. Try appointing a junior accountant as CFO and then encouraging your managers to ignore what she or he ’suggests’ if they feel they have a better idea. Of course things would come crashing down in less than a fiscal year. CFO dictates aren’t ’suggestions’ and are invariably backed up by CEOs and armies of accounting staff policing the rules daily. But with HR issues, people are so adaptable they put up with and take orders from blatantly bad leaders as well as good, the former being tolerated for years, often encouraged and even promoted because they ‘get the numbers.’

Most people continue to produce as faithfully as they can at least for a while till something better comes along and they cover poor performance of those around and above them up to a point. Financial lapses aren’t so self-repairing. Let me say for the record, if HR had similar rule-enforcing support bad managers wouldn’t be tolerated, let alone promoted. That would certainly make measurement of HR practices a lot easier, too, by enabling a much more consistent application of HR strategies than the hit or miss hodgepodge we normally see.

Now HR could never and should never strive to operate via pure enforcement. Human situations are simply too varied. By its nature HR has to work through other leaders in the organization and ideally help develop them to be the best possible. Nevertheless, clear HR values guidelines would help insist that leaders act with good will, positive reinforcement and other basic effective leadership practices. Needless to say perhaps, HR can’t be the body enforcing those values. As Archimedes said, “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I’ll move the world.” Let’s help HR with the tools and measures instead of suggesting they ought to make them all up by themselves. Help make HR part of the team or spend the rest of your declining performance time questioning why they can’t perform.

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 »

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 »