Tag Archive for: Leadership

One Habit to Create Action From Every Meeting

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By focusing on three simple post-meeting reflections, anyone in a professional environment can drive for better action orientation…

I wish this post was based on a blindingly original insight about how to be action-oriented.

It isn’t.

Instead, it’s based on a blindingly effective one.

The situation

I have walked the halls at dozens of companies over the years.  I’ve observed that one of the most pernicious yet obvious problems of strategic management at organizations large and small is the inability to drive action from meetings.

Some organizations I have been around have highly structured, up front requirements for meetings…They include things like lists of “desired outcomes” or “purpose and process” or “meeting objectives” written into the meeting agenda.

Those things can help.

Still, even those companies with strong meeting discipline struggle to avoid the “meeting to meet” habit that can come up.

Over the years of working on relatively ambiguous strategy and operational issues, I’ve found one leadership habit that has allowed me and a lot of my teams to go beyond objectives and process and toward a more action oriented approach to work.

It works in concert with good meeting planning; and leads to even better meeting planning for the next day, week, and beyond.

The habit

The habit I’m talking about is a 5 minute post-meeting reflection on most every professional interaction.  It focuses on three elements of action.  They are:

1. The insights gained in the interaction.  You just met for an hour.  What did you learn?  Those insights may be about facts presented and discussed, motivations of different parties in the interaction, or interpersonal dynamic in the room (or, sometimes, not in the room when unhealthy things like backbiting come into focus).  The focus on insights is a focus on what I learned.

2.  The implications of the insights and of the meeting overall.  It’s not enough to know what you learned.  You have to know what it means in the context of your organization’s or team’s macro-level agenda, the path of work that you may be following, and the objectives of the given meetings.  Often, studying the implications of a meeting brings you to drastically alter course on objectives, agenda, and problem-solving approach.  The focus on implications is a focus on meaning.

3.  The next steps implied by the insights and next steps. What actions will we take based on the things we learned and the meaning that they bring to the problem solving approach? The brief reflection on next steps in light of the insights and implications drives action orientation. It drives it–more importantly–based on the facts on the ground.  Many professionals are great at putting the next steps they think are going to come out of a meeting into the meeting agenda.  I’m saying that the next steps should be written on reflection, not strictly based on the agenda.

That’s it:  Insights…Implications…Next Steps.

Those three reflections, done personally or in team format for maximum of 5 minutes after a meeting, can drive toward more effective action in most any environment.

The more ambiguous the environment (factual, interpersonal, strategic, etc.), the more useful these reflections.

Parting thought

I received a part of this habit many years ago through good coaching from a manager early in my career.

I don’t see it as some groundbreaking insight.

I do see it as a way to increase speed and effectiveness in most any professional environment.

It is fundamentally action oriented…

But…

It requires a leadership approach that is grounded in vision and a hypothesis about direction and context.

If you have that, then Insights, Implications, and Next Steps will allow you to gain more from every interaction you have.

Try it out.

Why Your Entrepreneurs Leave

/3 Comments/in , /by

In large organizations, if board oversight and management incentives aren’t aligned with value creation, entrepreneurial mindsets can and will be crushed by “iron bureaucrats.”

In a recent post, I juxtaposed the decision-making approaches applied by hard core entrepreneurs and those applied by big company executives.  My thesis was that big company execs can learn from the decision making approach applied by entrepreneurs, if only their incentive structures can allow for it.

One reader, Graham Moores, responded on LinkedIn with this comment:

“In my experience the collaboration between Entrepreneurs and Executives is what should be aimed for, when one side does not understand and respect the other, problems will exist.”

This is a fantastic point, and in the ideal world, makes great sense.

If we can couple the entrepreneurial mindset of building businesses and bearing risk with the executive mindset of allocating resources and protecting against downside; all can win.

However, as Mr. Moores noted, the two sides often don’t understand one another; and therein lies the rub…

Why are real entrepreneurs so often bred out of large organizations?

The classical answers tend to be given offhand.  They include that big organizations move too slow, are too risk averse, and are double ungood at listening to new ideas.

These “reasons” tend to imply that large organizations are uncomfortable for people with an entrepreneurial bent.

That may be true…

But…

I’d argue the real reason entrepreneurship is bred out of large orgs is actually rooted in an organizational phenomenon best articulated by science fiction author Jerry Pournelle.  It has been called the “Iron Law of Bureaucracy.”

I’m capturing it from his website, but it has been quoted in many other places.

It reads (with my emphasis added):

“In any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

If we replace Pournelle’s well-known government-connected bureaucracies with some generic corporate examples, then you and I can start to see how this law applies to the problem of entrepreneurship and executive management.

It could easily read as follows (to be clear, all edits are my own and I present it only for conjecture):

“In any business bureaucracy there will be two kinds of people:

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are people dedicated to customer satisfaction, product excellence, and advancing the organization’s reputation among employees, customers, and the community…

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples include executives and administrators who focus exclusively on defending position, avoiding risk, and managing to the letter of all incentives.

It’s plausible to argue that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization.It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.”

What this might mean is that instead of large organizations being uncomfortable for entrepreneurial people, they actually become actively hostile to people who want to rock the boat in the name of building value.

The two don’t merely misunderstand each other; they grow to be fundamentally incompatible.

And, since the second group is far more likely to play the bureaucracy game with alacrity, its most senior representatives will eventually call the shots, just as Pournelle’s law states.

They are the “Iron Bureaucrats.”

So what?  Isn’t that just life?

Well, sort of.

As my reader, Mr. Moores, noted, it’s actually ideal if the entrepreneurial and executive mindsets can coexist and collaborate.  We want large organizations to both embrace business building and risk taking while at the same time embracing discipline and risk awareness.

That’s a good strategy.

But how?

Much of the time, this comes down to the inherent bent of the CEO and senior management.  If the CEO is an iron bureaucrat, then entrepreneurs will struggle.

If the CEO is a closet entrepreneur, even within the trappings of a large bureaucracy, then entrepreneurs can thrive.  One need only look at some of the shifts in strategy at bellwether companies like IBM, Apple, Nucor and many others over the years to see the evidence of this factor.

The other factor is the incentive set that is outlined for senior executives.  In a sort of Judo move, boards can take an iron bureaucrat’s best strength (hitting the numbers) and make it work for the long term value of the company by measuring business building activity aggressively.

So, while entrepreneurs are likely to be bred out of large organizations, they don’t have to be.  Through better board oversight (particularly on the philosophical bent of the CEO) and incentive alignment (particularly around business building) the curse of the Iron Bureaucrat can be overcome.

It’s always great to get thoughtful responses on blog posts, regardless of platform; and I hope you’ll add your thoughts here.

 

How to Handcuff Your Talent

/3 Comments/in /by

Talent waste is a leadership issue…

Have you ever walked around an under-performing business and marveled at the level of individual talent it has?

Have you ever seen a team comprised of “A” level talent deliver a “C” level result?

If you haven’t, keep looking. You’ll see it.

In a gross over-generalization of what constitutes “talent” it’s a proven fact that you can walk around some organizations and see hordes of squandered university degrees, MBAs, and PhDs; not to mention mountains of practical experience sitting shelved, squashed, and frozen.

We waste talent.  It’s a fact of life.  Sometimes that’s a conscious thing; and sometimes it’s accidental.

The curious case of Barbara the sales leader…

Let me tell you about Barbara.  Barbara is a deeply experienced professional in the technical materials field she has worked in for her entire career.  She has spent time across disciplines and functions, spanning engineering, manufacturing, customer services, product development, and–at the midpoint of this story–sales.

Barbara the sales leader was comfortable.  She had been working for Kenneth for a long time; and Kenneth called the shots.  Barbara learned when to speak up, and when to shut up. She was a good soldier.

When I engaged in a strategic planning project with Kenneth’s organization at the request of another sponsoring executive, Barbara was a distant figure–the sales leader who sat in the back of the room and didn’t say much.

On the one hand, I’d say Barbara was a good listener and perhaps a bit of an introvert.

On the other hand, I would call her disengaged.

She wasn’t under-performing.  She was “fine” as an employee.  She had good experience and used it well; but was a wallflower when it came to strategic thinking.

Then…Kenneth left the company.

And, Barbara, as the most senior person on the team, was named as the interim executive.

Guess what happened?

Barbara blossomed.

In one of the better examples of a senior person grabbing the bull by the horns that I have ever witnessed, she suddenly became a highly thoughtful, engaged, and action-oriented leader.  She has subsequently led the business to several successful years of performance, largely on the back of her own strategic and customer-centric mind.

It seems that all it took was to ask her to lead.  That, and to perhaps get out of her way.

Barbara was an A player just waiting to be asked to be what she was.  In a sort of sad reality, Barbara was only asked to be a C-level contributor; and her talents as a business leader were squandered for years because she was exceptionally loyal and remarkably under-led. 

What we can learn from the Barbara case

Just as Barbara was an A-player only tasked with a C result; sometimes, a team of “A” players can play like a team of C players.  They can produce a C result through a combination of disengagement and disenchantment.

I’ll go even further:  “A” talent is squandered when it isn’t tested.  In corporate cultures built on stability and loyalty, “A” talent waste can become acute.

Why?  Because in those cultures the employees with “A” talent are docile enough to let an organization squander their talent.

Shockingly, my experience has been that organizations that are exceptionally stable do more to squander talent than those that engender some turnover.  That’s why a talent performance management is a critical strategic tool.

In an odd and maybe counter-intuitive reality, organizations with high churn squander talent, but rarely squander careers.

Careers get squandered in stable cultures.  And it happens because of loyalty and leadership. These two powerfully valuable facets of culture combine to waste talent every day.

5 ways A-level talent can be led to C-level results.

I’ve alluded to all of these in the case above, but let me outline a few of the reasons great talent can combine into under-performing results.

1. Managers don’t systematically stretch their followers – They never figure out that they have A-level talent on their team.  They run a system based on time vs. one based on effectiveness.

2.  Managers know they have A-Level talent, but don’t want to let it go – A players are systematically hoarded by savvy bureaucrats who won’t open their hands and let talented people find their level in the organization.  A lot of bad leaders focus on talent having to “pay dues” in the organization; which is usually just code speak for “don’t take my job.”

3.  Managers are scared of good talent – Yep, it happens.  Insecure leaders will bury talented people in the organization. Ask around your organization, you will find stories of managers who have “killed careers” of talented people who have either taken a risk or shown up their manager (even accidentally).  As organizations approach the “cult of personality” archetype, this factor tends to be the dominant one.  Managers only promote those who promote them.  Ugh.

4.  Managers respond with indignance or confusion when A-players ask for “more” – Whenever a manager pooh pooh’s a talented subordinate’s desire to do more, he or she inadvertently puts a cap on what people will ask for in the future.  Pretty soon, people stop asking to be stretched.

5. Loyal followers learn the game and stop asking – Just as in factor 4, where people are subtly ridiculed for asking for more and stop asking, loyal people who “like their jobs” and “like the people” will understand that asking to be tested as an A-player comes with consequences.  So, they stop asking.  Pretty soon, they look at their careers and a decade has passed.

It’s sad.

When all of these things come together, you find yourself walking around the organization and marveling at the juxtaposition of amazing talent and middling performance.  You see brilliant people watching the clock.

And, you see senior managers with shocking blind spots about how they have kneecapped good talent.

The bottom line on this article is this:  All organizations squander some talent; but organizations that get a C result from A talent have a special combination of leadership myopia and organizational inertia.

Don’t let talent waste be a part of your company’s social contract.

#TheDress And Leadership Values

/0 Comments/in , /by

People see the same thing in different ways.  It’s important that we never assume our view of the world is the only one…Even when we are “right.”

Last week, a photo of a dress wasted a fantastic amount of time across the Internet.  A simple black and blue striped dress (yes, that’s the color) appears in the photo.

However, people the world over, when viewing the picture, process its colors differently; a significant number see the dress for the colors that it has; and a significant number see the dress as being a combination of white and gold.

Here’s the picture:

What colors do you see?

Here’s a link to a Wired Magazine discussion of why people see it differently.

The dress, or #TheDress, or #whatcoloristhisdress has created quite the sensation.

In my own household, my wife and I see the dress differently.  She is a member of the gold and white group, and I see blue and black.

We had a fun argument about it, culminating in my saying “I’m just glad I see it the right way.”

Her retort?  “The right way, hmmm?”

To which I replied:  “Well, not the right way, but the way it is.”  

That was worth a chuckle, but it sparked a thought; and that brings me to the point of this post:  While “The Dress” sensation is a sort of embarrassment to the collective consciousness, it comes with a lesson…

The lesson

We all see things through our own eyes and hear things through our own ears.

More importantly, we interpret the world through our own interpretive framework…We apply our own values.  They may be values we hold in common with those around us, but they have been nudged and polished by our own, individual experiences.

And, just as the dress shows that something as “objective” as color can be interpreted in highly divergent ways by people who otherwise see the world in the same way, the same is the case with values.

One person believes that a course of action is ethical and right; while another can look at the same situation and see something highly questionable.

Case in point…

In a recent case involving a proposal from one senior executive to another, I had a ringside seat to the abject implosion of a set of previously high performing professional relationships.  Those relationships were sacrificed to a highly inartful handling of  competing interpretations just like the colors in #TheDress.

In this case, one person saw the proposal as an opportunity; the other saw it as a big risk.  Mix in a third person who had a vested interest in the deal getting done (indeed, a personal one), and you had a very odd interaction.

When the “risk” side delineated what the risks were, he disclosed his interpretive framework.  He explained why the deal wouldn’t happen on his watch; and he essentially said the dress is blue and black…

But, the other side’s answer wasn’t to say “tell me more” or “let’s explore how to fix it or to mitigate the risks,” or even to acknowledge the legitimacy of a different framework.

It was to say “that’s wrong.”

The dress is white and gold…

…end of story.

There was no indication that an honest investigation of the risks to the deal was a possibility.

There wasn’t even a chuckle and an admission that people can see things differently.

So, what happened?

Eventually, the sides hardened to the point that there was no way for either side to move forward. Add in a touch of ego, a dose of stubbornness, some need to look tough and perhaps a pinch of bullying, and you have the demolition of personal relationships that spanned years in the making.

All because two people couldn’t come together and discuss interpretive differences.

When I shared this shockingly poorly handled situation in broad strokes with my 72 year old father, his response was pretty simple and cogent:

“The risk guy just thought that the other folks had the same values as him…that’s all.”

I think that boils it down.

And that’s the lesson that The Dress teaches us…

There are great perils to assuming that all people see the world through the lens of your values.  They can not only look at the same dress and see different colors, but can also interpret the very same actions in very different ways.

When you have a case like the one delineated above, such differences in interpretation can lead to the destruction of value, relationships, and organizational stability.

It is in how we handle our differences of interpretation that we live out a humane leadership ethic.

On one hand (the dress is white and gold) we can stick to our interpretation, and drill it into others.

On the other hand (the dress is blue and black) we can take the position that we might be wrong, and we can listen, think, and engage on our differences…Not as a posturing move, but honestly.

The measure of our leadership ethic is in how often we do the latter when we hold all the power.

The leadership lesson brought to mind by #TheDress is this:  Unless and until people entrenched in interpretive conflict can listen, reflect, understand, and test reality;  they will never realize full effectiveness.

The Dress tells us that even in seeing and believing, we should be open to testing our beliefs…Even if we think we are seeing the world as it is.

Coffee and a Do Not: Span Breaks

/0 Comments/in /by

For all the benefits of being a senior manager in a company, far too many management positions, even very senior ones, come with limited authority… Avoid filling or creating them.

In the grand scheme of things, being senior is a nice thing. Having position, especially position that others believe is influential and interesting, can be very rewarding.

However, in many organizations, particularly those focused on hierarchical control and “execution,” management positions–even very senior ones–can start to look like information channels vs. leadership roles.

They start to look like “span breaks.”  Literally they are a funnel for the span of control in an organization and not for the efficient operation of the company.

McKinsey defines a span break as a manager who relays information from executives to workers.  In an only mildly backhanded definition of reality for these sorts of managers, one McKinsey article explains that:

“Such managers keep an eye on things, enforce plans and policies, report operational results, and quickly escalate issues or problems. In other words, a [span break] manager is meant to communicate decisions, not to make them”

The result?  Managers in these positions play the role of observer, reporter, and monitor.  They may have “authority” on paper, but they know where decisions are made…and it’s at a higher level than them.  They spend more time in PowerPoint preparing for others to make decisions than they take making decisions.

Sometimes companies create these kinds of positions willfully as a means of developing people.  Most of the time, the created position is, unfortunately, an unrewarding one. If it is offered without a developmental time horizon, it can be career purgatory.

One firm’s leadership–intending to create developmental roles for high potential executives–consolidated multiple businesses into single senior management positions reporting directly to other senior management positions (in football speak, this is the old “I” formation). In the process, the company effectively re-layered its hierarchy with a redundant layer of management–not a fun thing for the professionals attempting to make a difference from those roles.

More often, the existence of span breaks in an organization represents brokenness in the leadership culture.  Top managers skip levels, second guess, and generate decision fear to the point where their subordinates only bring them decisions to make–and then, you suddenly have a span break.

It’s not the way the organization works on paper, but when you ask around, you realize that “all roads go to Rome.”  Often the decision maker is a tribal leader or highly controlling (and often excessively insecure) senior executive.

One semiconductor materials manufacturer’s CEO was so prone to second-guessing on particulars of any decision that his subordinates slowed their decision pace to a crawl while they funneled information through the CEO in a long series of “trial closes” for their own decisions.  The organization, up to and including its most senior business and functional leaders, was paralyzed by a smart but highly detail-oriented executive.

Do you have these issues in your organization?  Have you taken steps to create role clarity and real authority?  If so, what has worked?

Don’t create span breaks in your organization.  Devote time to real development of people through the development of meaty roles vs. symbolic ones; and ruthlessly eliminate actions that turn leaders into information carriers.

Most of all, don’t be a span break yourself.  Such is, in the most basic of terms, a bureaucratic pursuit.

Leonard Nimoy and the Warmth of Spock

/0 Comments/in , /by

Spock, as portrayed by the late Leonard Nimoy, has resonated through the generations because he married two things that we never get right:  Perfect logic, and heart.  

Today is a sad day in the hearts and minds of many fans of science fiction, and particularly fans of the Star Trek franchise.

Leonard Nimoy, whose portrayal of the iconic half-human half-Vulcan character Mr. Spock, has died.

I won’t dwell on the life of the man, because there are plenty of tributes out there doing that. Here’s a fitting one from the New York Times. I appreciate the art he both portrayed and brought to the screen.  Many forget that Nimoy was also a writer and director in the series of Star Trek movies.

What I will dwell on is this:  While the character Spock is a shoo-in for the hall of fame of science fiction characters; it’s not on the strength of a couple of prosthetic ears and tricked-out eyebrows, but rather on a stunning mix of logic and warmth he was able to bring to the screen.

This is a character smart enough to decipher the most cryptic stratagems, ranging from the evil of Kahn to the songs of whales.

This is a character so dispossessed of emotion as to have uttered such remarkably useful phrases as:

“Insufficient facts always invite danger.”

Ridiculously applicable to strategic thinking…

And,

“Change is the essential process of all existence.”

Directly applicable to organizational thinking…

And,

“I realise that command does have its fascination, even under circumstances such as these, but I neither enjoy the idea of command nor am I frightened of it. It simply exists, and I will do whatever logically needs to be done.”

Directly applicable to leadership thinking.

And, there are many more quotes like this.  Just Google “Spock quotes” today for a smattering of tributes.

But, the one that stands out; comes from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn.  In that film, once Spock has made the ultimate sacrifice for his comrades and ship; he says to Captain Kirk:

“I have been, and always shall be, your friend.”

I believe there is one reason that Spock has so resonated throughout the years; and it isn’t his mind.

It is that he was a friend.

This quote is a good reminder that no matter how smart we are–how perfectly logical and coldly calculating we may be; we must connect with others to be truly effective.

Spock managed to do it.

Maybe as we push to a higher level of strategic and financial perfection, we should keep in mind that the people around us are what create resonance with our excellence.

Rest in peace, Leonard Nimoy.

May we all “live long, and prosper.”

The Chinese Food of Corporate Leadership

/1 Comment/in , /by

Attaching real change to ubiquitous communications can save you from providing an ultimately unsatisfying change experience for your organization, shareholders, and community. 

The best management science surrounding corporate performance transformation comes with a hefty dollop of behavioral science.

Focus on the people, start with the “why,” ensure purpose, drive for meaning… Anyone who has read the likes Heath, Pink, and Sinek see these soft aspects of transformation leadership writ large.

And they have their place, for sure.

The best transformational leadership and influencing models therefore come not only with tangible change agendas (initiatives grounded in real strategic issues a given company needs to solve) but also in strong influencing tactics, including emphases on structured communications and leadership behaviors to “show” that change is happening.

But, there’s a rub…

With an overwhelming set of tools available for communication these days ranging from in person to multimedia to social media, and with a solid base of “new age” thinking like those listed above directing companies to talk about purpose and reasons for action; companies can have an overweening focus on communication as the action itself.

The result?  Communications are delivered with very high-minded ideals but without much substance or action.

They become a passing thing, kind of like the full feeling after a Chinese food meal.  In 30 minutes, you wonder why you are so hungry again.

Thus, communication without grounding in action is the Chinese food of corporate leadership.

Why is it unsatisfying, and why do corporate leaders go there?

Why has this become the case?  I can list a few hypotheses…

  • Communication is typically deficient – Yes, that’s the starting point that leads to efforts to “lead with communication.”  Leaders are busy. They get distracted from the day to day hygiene of good, solid communication. So, they over correct.

 

  • It’s fashionable to demand transparency in organizations – It’s actually ok (and, indeed, I encourage it) for employees to seek meaning and reason for their work these days… So, leaders go to communication first because it’s what people want.

 

  • Communication has become simultaneously easier and harder – Employees can be bombarded with messages, creating a situation where the ease of communicating actually destroys the effectiveness of it (How many of you reading this read every corporate email you receive???  Hmmm?).  So, leaders can resort to it early and often, far easier, in fact than actually creating action.

 

So, leaders communicate, but they aren’t strategic about it.  They “flood the channel” with communication for communication’s sake.

And, in the process, they create a tone deaf employee base resistant to listening to most any communication.

The implication?  Enterprise-level and line-level leaders have to do a better job of connecting communication with actual action.

But, how? 

The easiest remedy to the Chinese food dilemma is to avoid creating tone deafness from the start by ensuring that strategic arguments delivered to the organization are backed with action.

However, that’s not always possible.

So, the next best thing is to attach communication as an adjunct to good, solid change management.

In one client partnership, we have accomplished this by attaching communications to explicit efforts and milestones in the company’s strategic plan.

We limit the commentary on what is “coming” since many changes that are “on the come” slip into oblivion, and stay very concrete with communications linked to actions that specific people are leading.

In this way, communications that previously might have sounded like “We are upgrading our approaches to product development” start to sound like “This week we launched an effort to re-draw our product prototyping process, led by Jane Smith and focused on providing customer impact in the next quarter…”

In this way, we provide a filling meal of communication and action on the same plate.  We also engage people around real concepts instead of nebulous, amorphous strategy-speak.

You should try it.

But beware:  Trying it may show you how far from action you already are.

On “Best” Company Lists and the Incentives they Create

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lists that tout the “best” companies without actually measuring what the “best” is can be problematic in today’s image over substance world.

Liz Ryan, Founder and CEO of Human Workplace, writing as a contributor to Forbes, outlines how “best companies to work for” lists get the whole thing wrong.

Here is YOUR LINK

The operative passage (and I hope you read this after you’ve already clicked the link above) is this:

“I don’t trust “Best Places to Work” lists, because I was an HR person for five thousand years. I know that you can have lovely ­looking policies and programs for employees, but they don’t mean anything if the air in the place is heavy. If it isn’t a fun place to work — if people don’t trust one another, if the managers treat the employees like children, and if you can’t bring yourself to work all the way — then weight machines and free lunches can’t make it any better.

Unfortunately, it’s easier for some management teams to talk about gyms and lunches than to talk about fear and trust. They are too fearful to talk about fear!”

In taking down the “Best Places to Work” lists, Liz goes on to take down the game that results in them, namely that companies employ them as PR and branding programs.

She says:

“‘Best Places to Work’ listings are PR stunts that aren’t based on real employee feedback.”

But, there’s more…

I have a somewhat ambivalent to negative point of view on these sorts of lists. Having worked for and within companies that are featured on various and sundry of them, I think that Liz Ryan’s take is probably right.  Still, the lists that I’m most familiar with do make an effort to take in employees points of view, and they certainly do knock out companies for not meeting a given bar on the employee survey side.

So, I suppose there is some integrity to them.

But they do cause problems. And, I figured I’d list a few points that make these lists, their impact, and the incentives created around them a potential problem for the companies and the very people they are intended to help…namely all of us reading the lists and using them to make choices.  Some of the problems include that:

1. The inputs and nominations for the lists are self generated – This is essentially Ryan’s point:  If you look at the content generated for these lists, it is generally provided by the employers themselves.  In some cases, policies and perks are in the mind of an executive when they are put on paper explicitly for the survey, and it’s never referenced again.  Face it, it’s a fact.  Ryan basically says if you want to know whether a restaurant is a good one, don’t ask the proprietor, ask the patrons (and, especially, erstwhile patrons).  If you want to know whether a policy is in place, don’t ask the owner of the policy, ask 15 other people and see what you get.

2. The lists drive companies to plan around them –  Companies view the lists as critical to successful branding and talent attraction, and so they create executive incentives for their company to be on them. Human Resources and other executives are given incentives, sometimes heavy ones, to get on a given list.

3. The incentives, of course, can have unintended consequences –  When executives are incentivized not with creating a “best” company, but rather with crafting a “best” response to a “best” survey, then behavior can get confusing and, frankly, cynical.  Real issues that are brought to the fore (say in terms of fairness or application of policies) but that have no bearing on the surveys (which may not test for these hard to get at issues), are dismissed as “unimportant.”  This may sound harsh, but incentives matter. In the worst cases, less than mature or overly incentive-driven executives huff and puff at people who actually bring up real issues that don’t matter to the “bests” lists.

4. Surveyors stroke the egos of executives, creating an incrementalist approach to change – The surveyors, who do in my experience give feedback to companies that participate but do not make their lists, feed the egos of the executives (not the needs of the people) in dangerous ways by constantly explaining how “close” a company has come to making the list. It’s a “just a little more and you’ll be there” exercise.

I have yet to hear of a “bests” list survey team that will walk into a C-suite and say “Hey, bub, you aren’t even close…the people here not only dislike working here, but they dislike you and your team; and think you are only trying to make us, the survey team, happy.”

Such a surveyor wouldn’t last long.  So, those messages are given are incremental at best. “Just a wee bit more engagement,” or “we can see your progress and encourage you to keep doing what you are doing” is what gets said.  The implication is that executives are rarely caused to reflect by not making the list.  In the absence of the ego stroking “independent” evaluator, execs might have to take more drastic measures to change a culture in freefall.

5. Executives can revert to blaming in some unsavory ways – With knowledge that their organization is “so close” to making the list reinforced by the survey teams, execs might resort to blaming the organization or, in extreme circumstances, the survey team.  The “our employees don’t know how good they have it” ad hominem is a useful tool when explaining middling survey results and other yellow flags.  As a bonus, execs will also blame the survey team for mis-timed surveys (for instance for surveying during times that are too hot, too cold, too busy, or too boring).  When you are “so close” you look for small reasons for the miss, not big drivers.

6. Companies getting “so close” start teaching to the test – The lists become the “thing” and not the outcomes the list was intended to measure. Companies start teaching to the test.  They solve for a gym when a gym isn’t on anybody’s list.  They solve for engagement by throwing parties and handing out t-shirts when engagement is really about a much harder search for common meaning.  In short, they change the construction of a complex interpersonal environment into a check-the-box test; and fail in the process.

7. They focus on the survey when it really doesn’t fit – The “test” might not even fit a given corporate environment. For example, many of the “best places to work” lists are overloaded with professional services, marketing, and “knowledge work” firms and underloaded with manufacturing, materials, and blue collar firms.  The time and energy wasted in responding to a PR exercise could be better spent on improving the human dynamics in the actual company; but the survey distracts from this.

8. Sometimes the best companies know better – I know of at least one extraordinary global firm that has wrestled with the decision on whether to take the time and energy necessary to participate in these surveys. The reason?  The company defines great for itself, and doesn’t necessarily seek outside validation. It’s a compelling argument; but it MUST come with a highly reflective, listening-oriented leadership team (and it does in this particular firm).  The implication of this “opt out” factor is that people looking to due diligence a potential employer really can’t tell anything by the lists, because sometimes great companies skip the exercise altogether, and opt outs aren’t necessarily publicized.

9. Companies ignore and sometimes play into the conflicts of interest inherent to these surveys – This is perhaps the most critical factor in the “best” survey business, so I’m going to take a few more paragraphs on it.

As a rule, these surveys are meant to make the surveyors money. They are rarely if ever a public service.

Any businessperson can tell you that an activity that produces a salable report every…single…year better come with some provocative changes every…single…year or else what’s it good for?  Imagine a magazine that had the same article every month. That is what you would get if the surveys didn’t mix it up.  So, the surveys are geared to be interesting PR, and that’s what the surveyors want from their participants.  It’s not clear that interesting PR and highly engaged, stable, effective workforce always go together.

Desiring churn in the name of salable product is the first conflict of interest.  After all, companies staying on the list year after year is actually not what is best for the surveyor selling its results.

Farther than this, some survey companies have gone so far as to attempt to create franchises around their surveys, including consulting firms, licensing agreements, and any number of other entanglements that can start to look like good old payola.

To wit, in October 2014, David Lazarus at the LA Times posted an article about the conflicts inherent to the business model used by Ethisphere in creating its “Worlds Most Ethical Companies” list.  His assertion?  Companies pay to use the Ethisphere logo, they pay to have their survey processed, and they pay to be a part of Ethisphere’s events and alliances. They can also pay Ethisphere to benchmark their ethics programs outside of the survey.  All of this while Ethisphere serves as, ostensibly, an independent evaluator.

Ethisphere’s issues as an impartial evaluator have run hot and cold for years (starting with an article in Slate in 2010 that was quite scathing prior to some restructuring by Ethisphere, and later articles have defended or attacked their practices).  As an executive and advisor, I have been on the inside of at least 9 of the companies honored by Ethisphere, and while believing strongly in the principles that Ethisphere hopes to uphold can also say that, on the ground level and when it comes to individual executives: Your mileage may vary.

Ethisphere’s “most ethical” list gets a couple of lines from me because out of all the topics that “best” lists can cover, ethics is the one I’m not sure you can every, really survey.  The late collegiate basketball coach Dean Smith was known for once saying “you should never be proud of doing the right thing, you should just do the right thing.”

I think there’s a lot of truth to that.

No one ever says “They are the most ethical, be sure to ask them about it.”

To know a company’s ethical bearing, you have to go to the source of ethical tension, which is in the defining moments faced by that organization’s leaders every day in dealing with all stakeholders. I’ve said it before:  A defining moment is when two fundamental beliefs are in conflict with one another–people vs. profit dilution, transparency vs. legally required disclosure, honesty or efficiency.

It’s tough to say which company is “best” during those moments of truth, because many companies and their leaders haven’t had to face them all that often.  Impeccable ethics don’t reside in policy and procedure.  They reside in decisions and actions.

Being untested (or, frankly, merely the best at keeping our dirty laundry in the hamper) is not grounds for being labeled the “best.” The same is true of pretty much any subjective “best” list, whether it is best places to work, most reputable, most welcoming, most flexible, or otherwise.

Go to the source.

And, that’s where Liz Ryan leaves it, as will I…

 Liz Ryan says:
“If you want to hear what employees think about a workplace, check out the reviews on Glassdoor and remember to trust your instincts above all other sources.”

The short advice from me for those looking to due diligence a company from a reputation, ethics, or work environment standpoint is this:

  • Go to Glassdoor–just as Ms. Ryan says–if you want to see what people think of their company and how that is trending

 

  • Lacking a reliable base of responses on Glassdoor (which is still building), I’d go to the source. LinkedIn has made that maddeningly–for bad employers–simple.  I say maddeningly only because bad employers have lost control of the messaging.

 

  • For other issues, I’d go to companies’ communities, suppliers and customers (current and former) if I want to know about its ethics. And finally,

 

  • I’d be sure to trust my gut when things seem iffy–if the air seems heavy, it probably is. 

 

My advice for corporate execs thinking about how to “use” these surveys for PR or other purposes is threefold:

  • First, focus on the issues, not on the test. I’d, honestly, focus on what people want compared to the mission of the organization vs. what some list tells me my organization should look like.

 

  • Second, sure, I’d reference the surveys and what gets people excited outside my company–one has to attract talent, but I’d also ensure the internal voices are the most listened to.  I’m not sure that’s always the case.

 

  • Finally, consider the straitjacket that being on such a list might actually represent before deciding to participate.  Being called reputable by somebody who really doesn’t want you to be called reputable every…single…year should give you pause when you think about the implications of falling off such a list.

 

Oh, and I’d also talk to people who used to work there.  They give you insight and in most cases have nothing to “lose” by sharing a bit.

Once again, LinkedIn has made that a piece of cake.

Know what great is for you and the organization you lead, and work to represent it through thought and action.

4 Myths about Apple Design and What One Means for You

/1 Comment/in , /by

4 Myths about Apple design bring up at least one very interesting top management dilemma about talent, structure, and strategy.

Fast Company Design and author Mark Wilson recently shared an article that focused on one former Apple employee’s views on myths about what makes Apple go when it comes to design.

I’ll put the link HERE.

The four myths explored are:

#1 Apple has the best designers

#2 Apple’s design team is infinite

#3 Apple crafts every detail with intention

#4 Steve Jobs’s Passion frightened everyone

The whole is worthwhile…I wanted to focus on only one part of the commentary.

The first one.

Here’s the operative passage from that particular myth:

“I think the biggest misconception is this belief that the reason Apple products turn out to be designed better, and have a better user experience, or are sexier, or whatever . . . is that they have the best design team in the world, or the best process in the world…[but] It’s actually the engineering culture, and the way the organization is structured to appreciate and support design. Everybody there is thinking about UX [User Experience] and design, not just the designers. And that’s what makes everything about the product so much better . . . much more than any individual designer or design team.”

and this:

“It has often been said that good design needs to start at the top—that the CEO needs to care about design as much as the designers themselves. People often observe that Steve Jobs brought this structure to Apple. But the reason that structure works isn’t because of a top-down mandate. It’s an all around mandate. Everyone cares.”

I added that emphasis at the end…

Here’s my shorthand explanation of this explication:  Everybody thinks that Apple has the best design talent but what Apple actually has is a distinctive design environment.

This gets to talent, people, organization structure, mission, and purpose.

Sports teams from the New England Patriots to the Milan Indians have shown that system, buy-in, and dedication can overcome talent gaps.

But, too often overcoming talent gaps is pithy-fied in such nonsense as “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.”

That may be true in one off contests or one-on-one basketball, but hard work is only a fraction of the story when it comes to true, structural catalysis of excellence.

Corporate leaders need to think about far more than talent.  Talent is a resource that has a quickly diminishing return when it is placed in the wrong environment.  And, counter to that, the right environment can provide exceptional leverage to middling talent.

This one person’s view of Apple (I emphasize, one person’s view) reinforces this notion.

So What? 

As an organization leader at the frontline or as a senior executive in the C-suite, are you thinking about the structural limitations your work environment places on your talent?  Are you trying to overcome them by simply trading out people or “upgrading” your talent?

A race car with a fantastic engine can only go so far as its suspension, aerodynamics, tires, and pit crew allow.

Aligning mission, structure, and talent is what it appears Apple has done well.

RAND Corp’s 12 Instability Factors and Your Organization

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Earlier today, I came across this tweet by RAND Corporation.

It got me thinking about how organizations are, in a lot of ways, a lot like countries.

When we think and talk about change leadership within organizations, we are typically dealing with scaled down versions of political environments; and some of the lessons related to counter-insurgency and political change can and do apply directly.

RAND’s 12 factors that “generate and sustain unstable environments” are actually quite applicable for large organizations thinking about undertaking transformational change (or, to be honest, merely looking to stabilize performance).

Let’s do a little bit of mental ju jitsu, and replace “violent extremists” with “change resisters” and then see how this idea stacks up.  Let’s take them in turn and I’ll comment on how the factor translates to corporate change programs…

Factor 1. The level of external support for violent extremist groups…OR, The level of external support for change resister groups.

Doubtless, the level of external justification for individuals to be resistant to a given change agenda is a key indicator of how likely change is to happen.  This is the reason that role modeling by executives and peers to a given group undergoing a change is a critical input to the change leadership puzzle. Whenever a person in an organization (for the sake of argument let’s say it’s the finance function of your company) can go and get “mentorship” from outside of his or her group from other influential people who disdain or downplay the change…that person will be much more likely to resist.  It’s academic.

Factor 2. The extent to which the government is considered illegitimate or ineffective by the population

Another highly applicable factor is how legitimate leadership, particularly senior leaders and direct change leaders, is believed to be by the rank and file.  The “population trust” factor can’t be ruled out when thinking about how to lead change.

Factor 3.  The presence of tribal or ethnic indigenous populations with a history of resisting state rule

At first glance, this sounds like an anthropological factor that really is best left to the tribes of Afghanistan; but when you think about it, this might be the most relevant factor.  If you have ever tried to penetrate a corporate fiefdom ruled by a real tribal leader, you know this analogy is real.  If your organizational culture revolves around cults, fiefdoms, empires, and turf; you will undoubtedly encounter much more change resistance.

Factor 4. The levels of poverty and inequality

Change is hard.  It’s a lot harder when the senior executives live like kings and the rank and file live like doormats.  People notice.  A high level of inequality OR a high level of senior management secrecy about inequality will severely handicap efforts to change or stabilize a company.

Factor 5.  The extent to which local government is fragmented, weak, or vulnerable

This one goes to the tribal points outlined on point 3, but is actually the opposite.  If your organization has exceptionally weak local or frontline leadership; then people don’t get the word.  They are left to their own devices.  That’s a recipe for slow change at best.

Factor 6. The existence of ungoverned space

This is an interesting one when it comes to organizational analogies. In an organization undergoing significant change; my mantra is “everybody plays.”  Why?  Because when some organizational space is left out of the mix, people can either (1) reference it as a reason to resist as a matter of fairness or (2) flock to it.  

Factor 7. The presence of multiple violent, nonstate groups competing for power…OR let’s call them competing initiatives or agendas for change

Interestingly enough this one plays out in many organizations every day (not the violence…the competing agendas).  If your organization has an entrepreneurial leadership culture, this can be a frustrating downside of it.  Individual leaders’ competing agendas get in the way of the macro change and stabilization agenda; and you fail as a result.

Factor 8. The level of government restriction on political or ideological dissent

So, clamps on free thinking can be a bad thing.  Interestingly, factor 7 is the yang to this yin.  The government is overly restrictive, so people resist change.  This is a matter of trust.  When Dear Leader tells you what to do or else but you don’t trust Dear Leader; you go looking for a way to sabotage Dear Leader’s agenda.

Factor 9. The level of consistency and/or agreement between a violent extremist group’s goals and the ideology of target populations

This one seems sort of simple:  If people agree that resistance is the best answer, and they do so in great numbers, then your change program is sunk.

Factor 10. The extent to which population and extremist groups perceive faltering government commitment to a counterinsurgency campaign

In corporate-speak, this one reads “the extent to which your senior executives fail to follow through on change commitments.”  Might seem easy, but it’s a failure mode found every day in every organization.  Senior leaders find something more interesting to do than to drive change day to day, week to week, and month to month.  People see the lack of attention and become resisters.

Factor 11. The capacity, resources, and expertise of violent extremist groups

This one is a bit tricky to draw as an analogy to corporate change and stabilization programs.  Certainly change resisters have to have the capacity to resist; but a lot of times it’s just about clout; and that’s why factor 12 is the kicker…

Factor 12.  The pervasiveness of social networks

Absolutely. If the social influencers in your organization aren’t the same people as the change leaders, then you probably have a problem.  It’s very important not only to co-opt the hierarchy of an organization, but also the social networks by getting to the thought leaders first.

In many organizations, the people who make change go aren’t the 35 year old MBAs but rather the 55 year old shop foremen.  Social networks matter.  What RAND is likely getting at is the ability for information and protection to flow below the government radar in unstable countries.   I’m saying the same thing matters in unstable companies.

So What? 

I write this because the language and approaches to counter-insurgency as they have developed over the past 15 years are both directly applicable to leading change in a given organization.  Each of these factors, perhaps with the exception of factor 11 which I had to squint at to really see a link, relates directly to your own probability of leading successful change in your organization.

Keep this in mind next time you think change is easy!