Tag Archive for: Leadership

Stanford GSB: Mean Co-Workers Make Sense…

/0 Comments/in , /by

It turns out that modern corporate life is a justification in and of itself for people to be self-interested “jerks”…

While I’m not sure I fully agree (idealist that I am), some researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Business have studied the phenomenon.

YOUR LINK

The operative passage from researcher Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford GSB:

“People need to take care of themselves,” Pfeffer says. “They need to stop looking for this mythical Santa Claus that’s going to be nice to them.” To the suggestion that this was a depressing assessment of cubicle life, Pfeffer responded, “what I find more depressing is instances when people misplace their faith and trust in organizations—when people who think their company will look after them meet horrible consequences.”

Amen to the concept of horrible consequences waiting in the wings for those who don’t align the values they espouse with the values that their organization upholds.  Amen to that indeed.

It’s an interesting and quick read, in any case.

 

Leadership That’s Always Winter, Never Christmas

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Icy children’s stories from today and yesterday contain leadership lessons for us all.

I’m sitting here this morning in the aftermath of one of the nastier ice “storms” that we’ve had here in the upstate of South Carolina during my residence in this fantastic region. I use scare quotes around “storm” because I have to admit, I’ve never quite understood the term “ice storm” after living for years in Dallas, Texas and now Spartanburg, SC.

Ice doesn’t really “storm,” it just kind of builds up over time.

Which is actually a pretty cool real world analogy for the topic of this post, so…enjoy.

The benefit of being near joy and wonder…

One of the benefits of having 4 young children is that I get to relive childhood (constantly, some would say) with a grown-up eye on childish things. I get to experience joy, fear, and wonder through the eyes of four developing youngsters.

I also get to see, firsthand, the impact that storytelling has on our psyches, both good and bad.

I’m convinced that the power of storytelling never really goes away. A strong narrative delivered with integrity is just as powerful in helping adults understand and change behavior as it is for children.

it’s just an underused (and sometimes misused) tool.

Sometimes, referencing childish narratives with grown up eyes brings to light some pretty interesting and serious insights that apply to our adult lives.

If you’ve been with me for a while as I’ve dabbled in these posts, you’ve possibly seen my stab at a list of non-business books that business people should read. It’s here.

Number 2 on that rather eclectic and certainly incomplete list was the book Animal Farm by George Orwell.

Orwell was certainly onto something when he built his little allegory of a communist gangster takeover of an idyllic farm. It’s worth another look for anyone looking at social and hierarchical power dynamics in the organizations of today, particularly where there is extreme stress on words like “collaboration” and “teamwork.”

That digression aside, the reality is that narratives, even and perhaps especially those meant for children, have lessons.

I’m struck recently by the leadership narratives brought on by three icebound stories that have permeated popular culture. That they all deal with ice is only the more convenient this morning as I write this…

Three Profiles in Icy Leadership

The three children’s stories that have leadership narratives with icy “teeth,” which I’ll place in ascending “destructive” order, are:

1. Disney’s Frozen

The “leadership” plot: Poor Elsa, afflicted with fantastic powers to create ice and snow at her whim, freezes her entire kingdom. Through the travails of many friends and the schemes of a few enemies, Elsa learns to control her powers and balance them for the good of the kingdom (and herself). The kicker: True love.

The leadership lesson: Frozen is a story of unconscious incompetence writ large. You’ve probably experienced a fantastically talented leader who inadvertently freezes everything around him or her. You may have been one!

This leader creates an atmosphere of fear and mistrust that drives out all action and vibrance. But, this leader is actually coachable in the end.

In my experience, this is the profile of many, many young, smart, driven leaders who step into leadership situations that are challenging. They take control, dictate, panic, and ultimately freeze all the people around them because it’s all they have known over time. Maybe you have personally been here…

How to solve it: The key to the “Elsa” leader is to turn unconscious leadership incompetence (essentially a lack of self awareness around others who don’t have his or her powers) into conscious competence through coaching, feedback, and repetition.

Most organizations have a few Elsas in their midst. They need to be nurtured and coached, or else they progress toward our next to profiles.

2. Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen

The “leadership” plot: The Snow Queen, a story from 1845, was a very distant feed-in to the plot line for Frozen. “Very distant” meaning that the stories lack resemblance to one another.

Interestingly, the Snow Queen’ leadership foibles fall somewhere in the middle of the three vignettes here. The Snow Queen is a necessary and fantastically talented leader, being the leader of the hive of bees that bring snow to the world.

She, however, chooses to enslave a young boy who has been accidentally afflicted with splinters of glass from a magical mirror that freeze his heart and pollute his eyes–causing him to have affinity for the cold queen, to see the flaws in all that is beautiful, and to see all that is awful in an amplified way.

The Snow Queen takes the boy, whose heart is already cold, and freezes him further. The boy, blinded by his affliction, is pleased with her. The Snow Queen maintains her grip on the boy by telling him he can have his freedom once he completes a relatively simple task (spelling “Eternity” with shards of ice) that he just…can’t…figure…out.

Eventually the boy is freed by the love of his best friend, who warms his heart, washes away the splinters of glass, and lets him see the world, and the Snow Queen’s leadership, as it is.

The leadership lesson: The Snow Queen is a purposeful leader who has chosen to entrap a young soul for her amusement or benefit. You may have encountered this type in your experience.

The leadership lesson in this one is that individuals should be asked to serve to their highest ability, not to the whim of the leader. The Snow Queen leader doesn’t get this, and instead wants his or her followers to think they are in the best position they could possibly be in while he or she dictates their career.

How to solve it: Because these three vignettes are a progression from least bad to worst, this one is a bit tougher than the first. Most importantly, followers need to be willing to test whether their leaders are creating win-win career situations, or merely playing people into roles that are advantageous to the leader. On the leader side, having a few strong sounding boards outside of his or her organization can prevent the tunnel vision that results in pigeon holing people and getting less out of an organization than is possible.

All of this, of course, pales in comparison to the next profile…

3. C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

The “leadership” plot: Because the book is a Christian allegory (and quite a good one), most of the leadership focus in analysis of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is on the Christ figure, Aslan the Lion. Since none of us is going to have the power that Aslan had, I’d propose the real leadership lesson comes from the reign of Jadis, the White Witch.

The White Witch presides over a Narnian kingdom where she has commanded it to be endlessly winter, while at the same time purposefully preventing Christmas from ever coming.

Thus, in the kingdom, it is “always winter, but never Christmas.” In the precise brilliance that is C.S. Lewis’ writing, this phrase sums up so many leadership regimes in so many companies and institutions.

The White Witch is a terror. She is evil. She is enabled by an entourage of characters who have her back. She puts a bounty on any human who enters Narnia, effectively enlisting the entire population not against threats to the Kingdom, but threats to her own reign. Her most terrifying capability is that she can turn her enemies to stone…She has decorated her castle with statues formed of people who chose to dissent or disobey.

The leadership lesson: The White Witch is a leader with a conscious focus on self aggrandizement through a reign of terror. Leaders who fall into this category tend to be those who were not coached or apprenticed in their early years and who happened to be surrounded by and benefit from people that the leader was able to influence unduly as they rose to power. In short, I’m not sure there is a lesson, other than to intervene before the White Witch becomes the White Witch.

How to solve it: Leadership change tends to be the only way to overcome a charming but consciously vindictive and well protected leader. Usually, like in the story of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, it requires outside intervention (sometimes, ironically, resulting in the “demise” of the intervener). Bosses, boards, and peers have to identify the leader by virtue of his or her cultivation of a menagerie of henchmen and a garden of noble stone statues.

I hope you never encounter the corporate equivalent of the White Witch.

What’s the big deal?

So, why take an hour and a half of my day to write this? Well, first, the ice storm allowed it. That’s a picture of the deck outside my home office you see at the start of this article.

It turns out that having an open moment on the calendar is a fun thing when one of your hobbies is trying to push to a higher level of strategic and business leadership understanding and discourse (yes, I’d enjoy your comments).

Second, I think the lesson I’m writing on this morning is that the intersection of power and responsibility is real.

All of these leaders were fantastically powerful and talented in a raw sense.

The first type, the Elsa leader, has no idea that her power can freeze the world around her if she is not careful; and she has to learn.

The second kind, the Snow Queen leader, can only break out of icy habits by understanding that the people she leads should have an informed say in the matter.

The third kind, the White Witch leader, is in most cases a lost cause, polluted by power and ossified by suspicion and paranoia. She needs a re-set.

Though they are all powerful, these leaders’ senses of responsibility move steadily from outside themselves to inside themselves. There’s a point to reflect on in that reality.

Our children get to experience stories of wonder and consequence. Sometimes, it’s good that we revisit them as adults to understand that the authors of these stories–in most cases adults–were inspired by real, grown up problems.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post: Ice doesn’t really “storm,” it just builds up. Such is the case with leadership profiles outlined here…Hopefully, with a little foresight, we can get good at guiding the budding leaders in our midst away from these particular end points.

May your iciest experiences be preludes to the celebration of Christmas (or the holiday of your choice), and not the harbinger of an eternal blizzard…

Leadership and the Infinite Monkey

/0 Comments/in /by

The vision-less leader is like the proverbial monkey on a typewriter…Or even worse.

Options are a good thing. We all want options.

Chocolate or vanilla?

White or wheat?

Paper or plastic?

Options, to a point, are the spice of life.

But, there’s a breed of leader out there whose approach to leadership amounts only to options.

Too many options.

Options without conviction.

Options without vision.

Options without time boundaries, rules, triggers, or values. Just options.

“Try them all” says he,

“One of them might work.”

Generally, this leader has limited concept of or care for the burden “trying them all” comes with; but revels in the knowledge that something might happen.

He doesn’t know what.

But, perhaps when it happens he’ll know.

This leader’s style is a manifestation of the so-called “infinite monkey theorem.”

And a tortuous style it is.

What’s an infinite monkey leader?

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey on a typewriter, banging away, will eventually bang out the complete works of Shakespeare…If only given enough time.

He won’t know he has done it, and he will certainly have wasted a lot of time and energy in the process; but still, with enough time, he believes he will find success.

An infinite monkey leader works the same way: Bang away on enough keys and something good is bound to happen.

Call on enough random phone numbers and you are bound to make a sale.

Invest in enough projects and one is bound to “pop.”

Keep plugging away at a given project providing no financial returns and producing only noise because, you know, it is bound to straighten out.

Churn through enough people and you are bound to find a good subordinate.

The defining characteristic of an infinite monkey leader is the lack of conviction to narrow down and attack.

Instead, the leader only arrays resources against broad fronts, never narrow; and only attacks in rolling waves, never in thrusts.

In short, the leader never commits. He just bangs away.

The scary part?

Get this: A leader with Infinite Monkey affliction can often persist and even prevail.

Savvy ones refer to neat sounding investment terms like “portfolio effects” and “diversification.” These are worthy, useful terms in the real world of strategic management, to be sure. However, the infinite monkey leader takes them to the limit… Wasting time on things that should be stopped, never driving hard against things that should be over-invested, and ultimately missing the boat.

But, these leaders are out there, they are in senior positions, and in some cases they lead successful organizations.

It’s remarkable, but true.

In those cases, a few things are common. Most of the time, the strength of the organization overcomes the leader’s weakness. Some of the time, the leader has a strong “second” who corrals the mercurial or passive tendencies (yes, you read that right) of the infinite monkey leader.

In any case, there will be consequences. One only need look for them.

What are the consequences?

The consequences of infinite monkey leadership are substantial, but take time to manifest themselves, especially for the ones who find success through their organizations as noted above. They include

  • Frustration – particularly as every part of the organization realizes that any part of the organization might or might not be on the leader’s agenda–who can tell?
  • Wasted time and money – it goes without saying…keep banging away.
  • Lost opportunities – too often, the infinite monkey leader has a focus on meeting a budget versus building value; and that can lead to lost opportunities.
  • Lost people – particularly those who know better, so it’s a double whammy.

This is an article about opportunity costs and leaders who ignore them.

Opportunity costs are often very hard to prove in an organization. What if we hadn’t spent that extra year working on that project that everybody knew was a dud? What could we have done?

Tough to say.

Can this affliction be overcome?

I believe this affliction can be fixed…to a point.

In larger organizations, the fix comes from constraints and processes. Other people put constraints on the infinite monkey leader, and processes provide structure and required inputs for testing whether the options are real.

It’s bureaucracy, and it contributes to the longevity of the infinite monkey leadership style (it’s just a manifestation of a “strong organization” as I noted above), but it can work.

Over time the leader learns what constraint and conviction are, and starts to understand what truly constitutes a portfolio versus just a grab bag.

In smaller organizations, or organizational cultures where the top of the organization rules (and that doesn’t mean the CEO, it means the top of every function, work team, cell, and unit); leaders have to be good at asking a few questions in a structured…perhaps in a very structured way.

  • Do we know what we are doing?
  • Do we know why we are doing it?
  • Do we know the burden imposed in terms of time, money, and energy?
  • Are we spending our time, money, and energy on the right things?

As with most activities, sorting and scrutinizing works.

The real challenge for the infinite monkey leader is the last question…the “right things” question.

Usually, the infinite monkey leader can’t make that call.

That’s why he’s an infinite monkey leader!

He needs help. But, he has to admit that he doesn’t necessarily know what “right” is; and in some organizations that can be political suicide.

Perhaps he needs someone who can provide an interpretive framework for what “right” is. Perhaps he only needs to stop and think about what he believes.

It’s tough to tell.

Good, structured thinking and follow through is the requirement; because the leader lacks an intuitive feel for priorities and burden.

A parting thought…

I have framed this article around the concept of the leader being the monkey on typewriter.

For most of us, that’s a fun an engaging way of thinking about a significant leadership failure mode.

Sometimes we are the monkey leader, banging away on a keyboard, thinking we are making progress…

But, those of us who try to practice disciplined followership know the uglier side of this leadership affliction: Most of the time, the leader isn’t the one banging away at the keys…It’s his followers. He’s only ordering them to keep banging away.

Don’t be a monkey, in either case.

Know what you believe.

(And, yes, the chimp in the picture above is not a monkey…it’s an ape…But, still.)

Let’s Face It, I’m Smarter Than You

/1 Comment/in , , /by

thierry ehrmann

Some mindsets are toxic. If you propagate them, stop it. If your leader does it, weigh your options.

I write often on the light side of leadership. A few examples are here, here, and here. This one’s a bit dark. But, it’s real. Ask around.

“Let’s face it, I’m smarter than you.”

If any leader were to drop that phrase on you, you’d possibly recoil in horror and anger while looking for your hat and coat to depart. It is the sort of phrase that would be almost as hilarious to anyone hearing it uttered as it is spiteful and selfish in its utterance.

The issue is that a lot of leaders say this every day. They convey this and a whole host of other toxic thoughts through their actions. Sometimes, they don’t even know they do it.

The continuum of toxic leadership mindsets

I’ll list some of the host of toxic mindsets below (and I HOPE you will consider adding to them) because as a whole, they constitute quite possibly the single most distracting productivity sap of modern corporate life.

These mindsets are not individually toxic. Let’s be honest, all good leaders have these fleeting thoughts as a part of balancing the line between good, solid confidence and outright egotism. The issue is when these mindsets become the rule instead of the exception.

When they become endemic, they are destructive.

I’ve segmented them into six types, and given a few examples of the unspoken speech that comes with them. Ranging from mildly annoying (kinda jerky) to absolutely toxic (as in pure deal breakers–the kind of leader you walk away from at first possibility) the six types are:

Type 1: “My brain is bigger than yours.”

  • Let’s face it, I’m smarter than you
  • I could do this better than you.
  • I can interrupt you, but don’t you dare interrupt me.
  • My experience/knowledge/background is superior to yours.

Type 2: “I don’t want you to think.”

  • You will do what you are told.
  • This is not a team/democracy/collaboration.
  • That’s a stupid idea!
  • I’ve already given you the answer, don’t question it.

Type 3: “You don’t matter”

  • My freedom is more important than yours
  • My work is more important than you.
  • My family is more important than yours.
  • My stories are more interesting than yours.
  • I don’t believe in or sponsor people.

Type 4: “I don’t make mistakes.”

  • If it weren’t for you, we would have done better.
  • Because I have never failed, it must be you.
  • I have paid my dues and earned it (and you haven’t).
  • It was generous of me to do what I did for you.
  • I refuse to acknowledge that I might be wrong.

Type 5: “If it’s unethical, you did it.”

  • I’m happy for you to act unethically, as long as I don’t have to and can’t be blamed for it.
  • I would like for you to deceive other people and keep me safe.

Type 6: “I’m afraid.”

  • You do it.
  • You tell them (not me).
  • It’s not me, it’s you.

Notice how the progression goes from deep arrogance in Type 1 to deep insecurity in Type 6.

We all can deal with the jerkiness of ego from time to time. If we don’t, then we probably aren’t competing very hard. But, it gets excruciatingly hard to deal with an insecure or cowardly leader. That’s why type 6 is on the deal breaking end of the spectrum.

What to do…

The first point of this article is one of self reflection. We, especially those of us who lead others, have to ensure we’re not the ones representing these mindsets.

The second point is to provide some markers to look out for among the people you work for and with.

Generally, those markers are unspoken. But, if any of these mindsets ever turn into spoken word, then you’ve been given a gift–the gift of clarity. With your gift in hand, feel good about walking away.

When faced with a leader who possesses these sentiments at his or her heart; and who lacks the self awareness required to avoid expressing them; you really have two options:

1. Look past the leader to the other opportunities you will have in the organization. Many great people deal with ineffective or toxic leaders every day because they like their teams, like their organizations, and–most importantly–see the opportunity set that they have on the horizon past their current leader. In other words, they can look to the horizon and see past the stumbling block in their immediate path.

Or…

2. If you can’t see the opportunity for growth, and can get comfortable with the risk inherent to change…Go!!! Vote with your feet. Be confident that there are better leaders out there. Get away from them. Walk away, don’t look back, just leave.

A Parting Thought: Remember the Scorpion and the Frog

If you take pride in your ability to corral toxic leaders; or if you think that you are safe from a leader who professes the thoughts outlined above because you believe you have a special relationship with them…

or they sponsor you…

or you are somehow indispensable…

or they have told you that you are different…

…then I ask you this: Did the last few people this leader blamed for his or her own inadequacies think they were any less sponsored or safe?

Remember: In the fable of the scorpion and the frog…

…they both drown.

#Likeagirl, Evidence, and Leadership

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Always asks us what it means to do things like a girl, and in the process illustrates a fascinating leadership concept.

If you watched the NFL’s Super Bowl tonight, you may have caught a glimpse of a commercial advertisement that doubtless cost millions of dollars to produce and present during the time of the world’s most expensive ad buy.

The ad is by Always, the maker of feminine products and a member of Procter & Gamble’s stable of brands. I learned within the last few minutes that the video is not new; but I just saw it.

If you’ve seen it, forgive my late-to-the-game reaction and thoughts; but I hope you’ll read on.

I can’t do the commercial justice, so I’m just going to link it here and hope you’ll take a few minutes to watch it.

The operative phrase in this spot is

A girl’s confidence plummets during puberty.

It is a call to action to support girls’ confidence and fight the “like a girl” stereotype.

The ad challenges us to understand that girls, prior to 10 years of age, have no idea that to be told they throw, run, or fight “like a girl” is an insult of the most dangerous kind–a socially acceptable one.

No, I don’t fit the mold of someone who opines on commercials by makers of feminine products. Nor do I represent the most likely demographic to jot down a post related to important women’s issues.

But I have a young daughter.

And this spot got me thinking.

If girls the world over–like my daughter–can go from thinking that they run, throw, and fight strong at age 10 to partaking in the general ethos that their actions are not only inferior, but comedic by age 12…

…what is happening to people’s confidence in so many other arenas due to similar social pressures?

It’s probable that we chase a significant proportion of young women out of arenas they may excel within because they “don’t fit the mold.” This has been studied repeatedly.

It’s a real failure of leadership.

And that’s not just a failure when it comes to leading young women…It’s a failure when it comes to people of all types.

I’ve written plenty on the need for evidence-based leadership.

This one is no different.

Show me how you throw. Show me how fast you run. Show me how you lead. Show me your ideas. Don’t succumb to stereotypes and prejudice.

Speak up.

Show up.

How many professionals, men and women, live with the lack of confidence that comes from these types of dismissals and this type of derision?

As someone in the “degreed” class who has been around a few organizations over time, I’ve witnessed countless dismissals of highly valid points of view due to educational background, national background, or lack of facility with a second language. I’ve seen it because of the way someone looks or dresses. I’ve even seen it because a person grew up in the wrong corporate function or attended the wrong college.

And, sadly, yes, I’ve seen it because of gender.

Such prejudice shuts people up…quickly. It stifles sharing of talents and in its worst guise amputates aspirations that could benefit most any enterprise.

What I’m saying is that in the professional arena, #likeagirl could also be #likeahighschoolgrad or #likeamanufacturingmanager or #likeanonenglishspeaker or #liketheydidntattendharvard.

In other words, they are insults that really shouldn’t be–choices and mindsets that divide and dismiss vs. listen and consider.

Always, with a very interesting ad, is just saying “watch it, because its insulting to imply that girls can’t accomplish these things.”

I’m saying the same thing.

As leaders, we could learn a lot from this video.

Look for evidence.

The One Essence of Great Leadership

/1 Comment/in /by

Great leaders, regardless of the arena they lead within, share one absolutely essential trait.

“I’ve got your back.”

It is, without a doubt, one of the most satisfying things to hear from one’s leader.

In a single phrase, a leader can differentiate him or herself from the managerially mealy-mouthed “we’re all in this together” to the semantically and substantively different “I’m backing you.”

Such is the embodiment of the single trait–and it is a trait–that differentiates great leaders from all the also-rans.

Put simply:

Great leaders underwrite the risks their people take.

It’s the essence of great leadership. It encourages, extends, and drives people to levels of performance that the individual would not have thought possible.

What it means to underwrite risks

In the financial world, the underwriter is the one who bears the residual risk of non-performance. Underwriters back insurance, loans, mortgages and equity offerings.

The word derives from the 17th century birth of the insurance trade. In those early days, members of the Lloyd’s of London insurance market would write their names under (therefore underwrite) the risks being undertaken by ventures (usually ship voyages) that they would insure.

The underwriters, in exchange for a premium, backed the risks they underwrote.

Because of this insurance, shipping companies were freer to engage in commerce individually than they otherwise would be.

That’s what great leaders do. They explicitly backstop the risks their people take.

Sure, they extract a premium from their teams in the form of performance and value.

And, sure they don’t underwrite all risks. That would be absurd.

But, they provide cover…protection…a backstop.

And, their people know it; because it’s explicit.

Great leaders underwrite the risks they ask their people to take. In doing so, they quite literally enable people to accomplish more than they could alone.

Why this matters

Why does the backing of a leader allow for out-performance by followers?

The reasons are many. Here are a few:

  • It inspires confidence – Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his letter to the Operation Overlord troops prior to the D-Day invasions in Normandy in 1944, told each man of his “full confidence in [their] courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle.” Confidence is a tremendous asset when pursuing risky ventures.
  • It encourages action – Leadership underwriting allows people to try new things more easily. Think of it as the social venture capital of innovation and initiative.
  • It encourages stretch – Like the safety net for an acrobat, leadership underwriting allows for a more complete exploration of one’s talents. It encourages people to take on stretch roles.
  • It neutralizes doubt – Doubt can be healthy. Doubt can be paralyzing. A strong leader underwriting his or her people takes the doubt and bundles it up; like any good insurer does.
  • It apportions risk appropriately – Great leaders own risks commensurate with those owned by those they lead. At the same time he drafted the words of confidence in his troops noted above, Eisenhower also drafted his “in case of failure” letter. Though it was never required, it famously ended with the words “The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

Eisenhower knew the risks he had asked his troops to take, and stood ready to take the blame in the case of failure.

He did not equivocate.

That’s why this matters.

So, how do you know if the risks you take are being underwritten by your leader?

The answer to this one is easy. Ask yourself one question.

Do you feel that you are freer while within the sphere of influence of your leader, or do you feel that you have more freedom outside of it?

Because, put simply, it should not feel freeing to leave the sphere of a great leader.

It should feel risky.

Because they have your back.

Parting thought

One of the most important choices we all will make in our careers is the choice of risk sharing relationships between us and our people and between us and our leaders.

How we apportion risk between ourselves and our teams or allow it to be apportioned between us and our leaders essentially shows how much we respect our people and ourselves.

Choose wisely.

Try it today… Underwrite somebody’s risk.

I’ve got your back.

How to Assess Your Next Leader

/1 Comment/in , , /by

On objective measures, leaders can be easy to vet. Subjectively, I suggest one diligence question that trumps them all…

We talk and read a lot about professional values…Values that range from exceptional and humane performance to basic and simple ethics.

In many cases, it is just that: Talk and writing. Just like the platform I’m standing onright now, it’s far too easy these days to publish a bullet point list of things you thinkothers should do.

This article is for those who expect it to be more than words.

Leader evaluation…Some background

Having been a part of a few organizations that are styled more as talent markets–professional firms that dynamically mix management and subordinate talent into short term teams–than as classical hierarchical organizations, I’ve gained a point of view on leadership evaluation that is perhaps helpful to those who have spent their lives living in the lines and boxes world of static organizations.

One of the benefits of firms styled as talent markets is that people–particularly junior people–get to vote with their feet. They learn that working with a bad manager is not a bitter pill they have to swallow for career advancement.

Bad managers and leaders are weeded out either through formal processes (surveys, 360s, and feedback), or simply through word of mouth.

Another of the benefits is that people actually learn to do their due diligence on a leader. They learn to ask about style and substance in polite but penetrating ways, and to judge the reaction accordingly.

Most corporate environments operating with a hierarchical organization lack this component of “churn.” And, that can be a good thing. People become masters of their work more readily.

But, those same people can also become resigned to their own fate.

In a corporate environment, the vast majority of a person’s job satisfaction is based on the leader/manager/supervisor they work for. That can range from the CEO to a front-line supervisor leading a work team.

So, when considering a new job, a transfer, or a new company, employing some talent market-style due diligence tips can help you avoid a bad experience that can last a very long time.

The diligence list…

First, the basics of leader evaluation. All of us should investigate basic performance and ethical values before joining a new leader.

Ideally, we do it with a mix of people who currently work with the leader, and who have previously worked with the leader.

In today’s world, it’s very easy to track down a few people who have close knowledge of an individual leader through prior interaction.

Some of the basic questions to ask include the following:

  • Does the leader perform?
  • Is the leader accountable to others?
  • Does the leader develop people?
  • What’s the leader’s style in conflict?
  • How does the leader handle competing factions?
  • How does the leader manage big and small things?
  • What is the leader’s track record of advancing peoples’ careers?
  • How does the leader engender trust?
  • Is the leader a clear thinker and direct communicator?

These are all “good” questions that anyone considering a new job should ask.

But they all leave out the litmus test of leadership: The re-buy.

That’s where my best advice comes in.

The kicker…One question to rule them all…

Here is the critical question. You might say I’ve buried the lead in this one, because it really is the one that matters.

The question you should consider asking when evaluating a new boss is this:

Would you want your son or daughter to work for this leader?

That’s it. That’s the simple question.

Why?

It creates emotional distance for the person answering it: They don’t have to admit they are an idiot for choosing or staying in a bad situation directly. They get an ego “out” by being able to say how different their situation is than what they would want for others.

It overcomes the endowment effect that we all suffer from when evaluating our current circumstances: We value where we are right now more than we would value it if had a clean slate to choose from. It’s a proven psychological fact. We make excuses for why we stay with our bad leader.

It gets to a fundamental question of humane values: A lot of people will walk through fire to provide for their families, and they will make every excuse and fully martyr themselves on their way to it.

But.

When you ask them if they would put their kids through it, it gets personal and protective.

Most people look for better lives for their kids; not lives lived making up for bad leadership.

How to use the responses

Listen for the nuance in the response.

A lot of leader diligence is about the meta knowledge you will gain. The more senior you are, the more politically savvy the respondent, the more you have to listen.

Namely, if people cannot answer your questions or will not offer a reference, you should wonder why. It tells you something if a person, particularly a very senior person, refuses to give a perspective on prior leaders.

In that case, keep asking others who have been on the path.

One caution: You can always, of course, ask the question about whether a reference would work with the leader again; but remember that chemistry matters. Sometimes people leave for good reasons that don’t have to do with bad leadership.

A parting thought:

I’ve used this sort of litmus test question in countless diligence discussions; and it has been used on me in even more of them. I view both of those things as a good thing.

I’ve gone against poor “mood music” on this sort of question in only a couple of instances.

Knowing the outcome of those choices, I can only say:

Take my best advice.

The New England Patriots and Uncanny Perfection

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As the New England Patriots may be showing, the best evidence of a poseur, cheat, or a fraud is uncanny perfection.

This article is about how outlying behavior without explanation demands scrutiny. Perfection, or near perfection (especially if neatly calculated) is so uncommon as to be an indication of ill-dealing.

The NFL’s New England Patriots are only a prop. This applies to all of us.

Watch out for it.

Logical links to prior thoughts on this topic

Last year, I wrote on the use of Bayes’ Rule to uncover when enough evidence was enough to make a decision.

Link: When Enough is Enough

The thesis in that one was that one powerful indicator of deviant behavior or a long history of slight deviances were equally enough evidence to underpin a decision to promote, accelerate, or move on.

Last week, I wrote on the interesting (to me) ethical questions raised around the New England Patriot’s winning big while allegedly cheating in the AFC Championship game.

Link: Deflated Footballs and Minor Ethical Lapses

Many, many people claimed, and still claim, that the alleged cheating didn’t matter because it didn’t affect the outcome of the game.

My point was that process matters.

Nothing new there.

Now, there’s a fascinating bit of information on the New England Patriots that has come out that brings another ethical insight to light that combines these two theses.

Today, I get this link in my inbox. It’s an article picked up by Slate.com and written by a sports handicapper named Warren Sharp.

The link is to an analysis of team fumble rates in the NFL under different conditions. In a nutshell, it says that the New England Patriots have an uncanny and longstanding ability to avoid dropping the football. Here’s the operative quote:

Based on the assumption that fumbles per play follow a normal distribution, you’d expect to see, according to random fluctuation, the [fumble rate] results that the Patriots have gotten over this [2010 – 2014] period, once in 16,233.77 instances.

To quote Lloyd Christmas’ question: “So, you’re telling me there’s a chance?”

Yes, but a shockingly remote one.

The bigger chance is that the Patriots are different from other teams. They have figured out a competitive advantage. Conjoin that with the newest revelation of potential cheating by deflating balls, and a clear history of cheating in the franchise in the past, and?

The most likely explanation is that they have been cheating for years, acquiring a competitive advantage that is as immense as it is unlikely.

This isn’t about a single game whose outcome didn’t matter…But rather about longstanding, likely ill-gotten gains.

Sound familiar? Enough is enough.

Because it’s a global audience…a digression for the un-versed…

For those who aren’t versed in the cheating accusations against the Patriots, let me give the one sentence explanation:

The Patriot’s alleged use of deflated footballs would enable better grip by those players who handle the football, resulting in better control–especially in wet or slippery conditions–when throwing, catching, or running with the football and therefore a lower probability of drops, fumbles, and subsequently turnovers.

For those who don’t know, an American Football team’s turnover margin (that is the net number of times the ball is relinquished to or recovered from opponents through error) in a given game is an extremely powerful indicator of win likelihood. An advantage in grip on the ball is therefore significant.

The shocking, interesting, and applicable analysis

Mr. Sharp, in the midst of multiple cuts at the data, compiled this view of the NFL offenses’ fumble rates per play from scrimmage. I’m reproducing it here for commentary. The analysis is fully Mr. Warren Sharp’s.

Fumbles are the small circles, fumble rates (per play) are the orange boxes. New England is on the far right. Two things you notice immediately:

First, that New England (the far right side team) has a fumble per play rate that is in the stratosphere. They have a fumble every 187 plays. That’s truly exceptional (as the chart shows).

Second, as the article outlines, is that the next three best teams–the ones who even approach being outliers–are dome teams.

Not only is New England great at protecting the football, but they also do it better than teams with structural advantages that New England doesn’t have.

All of this is over a very long period of time (5 years) so “noise” should be shaken out of the analysis to a large degree.

Impressive? Yes. Fraudulent? Probably.

What the message is…

Such an analysis has real world applicability beyond the game of American Football. And, I’ll tell you why: If I told you that a team was so good at a key aspect of the game over the long run so as to be a near statistical impossibility, and then told you they had possibly been caught cheating in a way that would directly affect that aspect, what would be your conclusion?

The Patriots’ out-performance on fumbles is striking. Especially when you consider the conditions they often play under (in New England and outdoors). It’s akin to a company in a mature, commodity industry constantly and significantly outperforming companies in high value added, high growth industries. It can happen easily over the short term, and could possibly happen over the long term if the company were doing truly special things within the rules; but it deserves some scrutiny.

Statistical, financial, job performance, or any other kind of perfection should raise your fraud antenna in the first place. Combine it with observation of ethical “grayness” and you’d better watch out.

The message is that practical perfection should be applauded, but also scrutinized. The more perfect your investments, subordinates, or superiors are, the more you ought to ask the penetrating questions on why. The moment you observe lying, cheating, stealing, or (note this) aggressive isolation of people who decide to ask questions; you should be careful.

That isolation point is an important one: Remember when Jeff Skilling at Enron called an investment analyst an “asshole” on an investor conference call? The analyst only asked a practical question: Why couldn’t Enron produce a balance sheet?

Here’s a link to that episode.

It’s a fascinating moment in the unmasking of a fraud.

Interesting isn’t it?

This is especially important if you are the senior executive or board member who is benefitting from current ethical grayness.

Earnings look too perfect? Ask the question.

Reports on operations or people or sales too rosy? Ask the question.

I can assure you that Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots, now wishes he would have asked a few questions over the past few years.

3 practical applications

I guess there’s a message here for people looking to ferret out or avoid being entangled within a fraud…Look for the quiet successes–individual or organizational–that lack any semblance of failure. Perfection is great, but not common.

A few more points:

  • Watch out for “tsk tsk” behavior by those who benefit from the perfection. Righteous indignation is the first and scariest refuge of the fraudster. When you ask someone about their methods, and they give you the “how dare you” act, you have a powerful indication. The Patriots tried this early last week, but the situation quickly got beyond their control.
  • Statistics matter. If someone is “perfect” or winning by a lot and can’t really explain what they are doing so well, take that as a hint. A “perfect” executive likely buries a lot of skeletons. A company with “perfect” financial performance likely carries a lot of fat or a lot of creative accounting. The Patriots’ statistics show how creative they are, we just don’t know how (yet).
  • Observations matter. Ask around. If others indicate ethical grayness exists in the historical record; or they simply won’t talk, you probably have your answer. Closed ranks or a history of crushed complaints provide you the indication you need. The Patriots were branded cheaters years ago, and such a track record will be in the record during this current “scandal.” If you are a board member or executive, all you have to do is ask, but you might have to ask the second order question… There have been no ethical complaints? What if the environment is such that nobody would dare complain? Go to the source at least once or twice at decade.

I have no particular axe to grind when it comes to the New England Patriots. I do, however, think that there are lessons to be learned from the “Deflategate” scandal both in the behaviors of the Patriots franchise and in the peculiar reactions to it by fans and pundits.

The Patriots’ statistical “perfection” is starting to look more and more like a fraud, and while it pales in comparison to famous frauds like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco International, or AIG; it provides some of the same human elements that all these others had in common.

The lesson? Be vigilant, especially when things are too perfect.

8 Things Your Consultants Say About You

/0 Comments/in , /by

The presence of consultants in your organization is a powerful indicator of your strength or weakness as a leader.

It’s basically impossible to move through life without using a consultant. From the haircut you get to the type of shoes you buy to the grand strategy for your organization, chances are you have tapped knowledge outside your own head in order to inject perspective, organize choices and expedite success.

But, in the business world, the presence of consulting talent in an organization provides an interesting barometer on the organization itself.

The “right” consulting model

Transient talent is a useful thing for both efficiency and effectiveness. Even in the most autonomous leadership cultures, adopting temporary talent can be a make or break proposition.

Think about the merchant shipping industry. The captain of a ship is exactly that–the absolute authority at sea.

Yet, captains readily relinquish their authority to harbor pilots every day in every part of the world. The harbor pilot is a consultant of a specific kind: One who has very specific knowledge useful in a very specific circumstance during the life of the ship. The harbor pilot is far more versed in the navigation of his specific harbor than any oceangoing captain could be.

His experience allows for safer navigation of the port regardless of conditions that might not show up on a chart or radar. And, while the captain maintains command of the ship, he or she smartly relinquishes control to the pilot as a matter of course (or, in many places, law).

Thus, the captain brings a pilot aboard to ensure effective navigation with superior knowledge and talent; but not to replace his own command or the need for talented crew members at all times. The pilot boards incoming ships as they approach the port and leaves outgoing ships as they leave.

He’s a consultant.

Such use of transient talent is the “right” model of management consulting: Specific talent applied judiciously and precisely.

But, you and I both know that isn’t always the reason or approach to retaining consultants.  The way consulting talent is engaged–and the objectives for engaging it–says a lot about the executive engaging the consultant.

The interpretation is made by the organization–and that matters.

So…

8 things your consultants say about you without using words…

First, The Good.  To your organization, effective use of outside talent signals some pretty cool things; such as:

  • You are seeking the right knowledge at the right time: Engaging consultants is sometimes an admission that you and your organization can’t possibly know it all. So, you hire consultants who bring sources of knowledge to renew your own.
  • Your recognize that time is of the essence: You know that without augmentation, your existing staff may not have the bandwidth or tools and approaches to managed a rapidly paced project. So, you bring on management talent in a bounded manner to get “over the hump.” There’s no time to waste.
  • You care about developing your organization: You believe that development matters. You recognize that your team and organization can benefit from seeing new ways of doing things. So, you provide outside support to them as a means of developing them along in their careers. They get to see by doing alongside those who have been there and done that.
  • You are good at managing SG&A expense: Just as it would be impractical for every oceangoing captain to learn the intricacies of every possible port he or she will visit, no organization needs to staff against every contingency. Hiring talented consultants during peak times or against peak needs shows that you value great talent, but also solid bottom line performance. You are willing to pay a premium in the moment; but are good at getting lean and mean without having to fire people.

The consultants in your midst may say these things about you; and I hope they do.

However, there’s just as much a chance that consultants represent some brokenness around you…

So.

Here’s the bad, along with a little more narrative on some ways to sniff it out.  

Done inartfully, engaging consultants can telegraph to your organization that:

  • You lack confidence: You lack confidence in your professional capability. You lack vision. The desire for “more study” and slow playing–a result of vacillating indecisiveness–is sometimes an inefficiency that consultants thrive in. Worse yet, your organization may get the sense that you require the ego-stroking presence of high profile consultants in order to make it through your day. Finally, there’s the potential signal that you lack confidence in existing staff. Consultants can feed off of a lack of confidence in very dangerous ways. If the last several consulting engagements you contracted basically confirmed what you already knew, then take a hint.  If your trusted consultant (or any corporate confidant, really) spends more time massaging you than working the problem, you have a further hint that your confidence is being played.
  • You lack action orientation: Bringing in a consulting team to analyze the un-analyzeable in the name of seeking cover with your senior management and board is only sometimes okay. If you are in a position to “bet the company” then taking a deep breath and seeking a second opinion is fine; but you’d better let the organization know you are choosing to over-study the situation; because risk averse navel gazing is contagious. How many times do you hire a specific consultant just because they are the one your boss or the board will listen to? To a degree that’s just good politics, but sometimes it’s politics spelled C.Y.A.
  • Your talent strategy is off: It goes without saying that if you continuously engage outsiders at an arms-length premium to do recurring, especially generalist work; then you are probably missing an opportunity to upgrade your own talent base and save money to boot. When outsiders get all the sweet gigs, your inside talent base gets grumpy. Keep that in mind next time you engage a consultant to do work that could be a stretch for your insiders. Also, watch out for instances where you constantly re-engage “retired” employees you haven’t been able to back-fill. It may be an indicator that your talent strategy is bumbling.
  • You have a bad place to work: This is the bottom of the barrel. You have the Las Vegas of workplaces. People may visit and try to get rich, but nobody really wants to live there because of its false front and seedy underside. How many times do you attempt to hire the consultant but get rebuffed? How many times have outsiders with a good taste of the inside of your organization voluntarily re-upped as a full time employee. Worse yet, how many of your consultants have recommended (non desperate) people to come work for you without collecting a search fee? If the answer to these questions is “few or none,” your consultants may be feeding off of an awful company environment. You might have an organization that is a “nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to work there.”

So, there you have it…8 things that consultants may be signaling to your organization.  The good is good. The bad is ugly.

I recommend the good.

A parting thought…

As someone who has scoped, negotiated, and managed many millions of dollars worth of consulting projects and engaged consultants and advisors for millions more, I clearly believe that management consultants can provide exemplary value as hired guns aimed at specific, impact-oriented targets.

It just requires a high professional standard on both sides of the engagement.

It’s important to know what your consultant may be saying about you, if only through the words of the observers in your organization.

Watch out for the bad stuff…

Deflated Footballs and Minor Ethical Lapses

/0 Comments/in , , /by

If a lapse of ethics can’t be connected to the outcome, does it matter at all?

There has been an interesting meme accompanying the “deflategate” news about the New England Patriots possibly cheating in the AFC Championship game by using under-inflated (and therefore easier to grip and catch) footballs. The Patriots won the match against the Indianapolis Colts in a rout.

The score was 45-7.

It wasn’t close.

The meme that is emerging on many commentaries on the situation goes something like this:

The Patriots still would have won, so anybody whining about cheating just doesn’t get it.

Translated a different way: An ethical lapse that underlies a big win doesn’t really matter if you can’t draw a direct line to the win.

I won’t pass judgment on the Patriots because the facts of the case are only just now trickling out. I suspect that there will be some grand repercussions if the current reports of 11/12ths of New England’s game balls being artfully deflated are fully confirmed.

However…

The meme deserves some discussion.

Practical Pillars of Ethical Behavior

There are really only a few practical pillars of ethical behavior. Ethical behavior really is simple enough for a child to understand.

In the simplest form, the Golden Rule suffices.

Do to others as you would have them do to you.

A slightly more in-depth examination (and I’m musing with an hour to write this, not attending a philosophy class) brings a few more things to mind:

  • Informed Consent: Ensuring that the players at least know that it’s a game where cheating is possible. In the NFL case: The Colts knew cheating was possible and complained about a similar issue in November after losing to the Patriots 42-20.
  • Rule of Rules: When there is a social contract, a policy, a rule, or a law, it gets followed or changed. Enforcements and rule changes don’t happen ex post. The NFL rules are quite precise as to what compliant football inflation is.
  • Duty of Care: Leaders have a duty to uphold the same ethical and fiduciary standards that their leaders have. Senior leaders and boards rely on subordinates to uphold standards, not to secretly break them when it’s advantageous. The head coach and others will receive stiff fines and likely suspensions if violations are proven…Not just the ballboy and equipment manager.
  • Avoidance of Ignorance: The appearance of impropriety should be a motivation to know more, not less. Ignorance is not ethical bliss.Unfortunately, we already see some high profile Patriots glossing over the seriousness of the allegations. New England QB Tom Brady calls this burgeoning scandal the least of his worries and TE Rob Gronkowski made light of it with a joking tweet.

Note that I don’t bring “fairness” and “equality” into the mix of ethics. Power and comparative advantage are real things.

Live with it.

When to apply or not apply the pillars

With those things in mind, when is a minor or remote lapse of humane ethics ok? When does personal advantage trump the ethical duties outlined above?

Is it when the ethical slip is so small or far removed from the win that nobody can possibly link it to the win itself?

Is it when the actions are in secret? If contracts prevent others from talking about the ethical cracks that exist? If the people who know the truth are powerless or discredited?

When is it?

I’d argue that it’s worth examining one’s approach to life, profession, and leadership with these lenses; and working not only to be in alignment when them, but also in league with others whose ethics are similarly aligned.

Doing this examination, even (and especially) when in the midst of a big win is the mark of a humane leader.

But, why? Why not just take the win and shut up?

Why is it important to examine one’s self even when winning big?

The first reason is this: When ethical lapses are buried under big wins as “irrelevant,” they create cracks. Over time those cracks become holes you can drive a truck through. Those holes destroy lives, reputations, families, and organizations.

The Global Financial Crisis was allowed to reach its catastrophic crescendo because a profound number of “minor” ethical lapses in underwriting, ratings, and personal financial standards were ignored in the fantastical run-up to the crisis.

Thousands of people knew that the lapses present would result in a crash. Greed being what it is for all of us, it was too costly to examine the realities and step off the machine.

The second reason is this: When suspected ethical lapses are ignored due to organizational distance, plausible deniability, or other comfortable but specious buffers, they form the same cracks as knowingly buried lapses.

A fantastic example of this is evident in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scheme. No, not because of the deplorable Ponzi scheme itself. The learning comes from the the legions of people investing with Madoff. Many of them suspected that Madoff was doing something illegal or unethical. Some of those were warned outright by the likes of Harry Markopolos. However, they were far too comfortable with their clockwork-like 12 – 16% annual “investment” returns.

In the Madoff case, a cynic would say that the people benefiting from the scheme while it was running knew they were dealing with a crook. But, he was “their” crook. He was making “returns” for them that others couldn’t access.

A slightly more generous take would be that while people suspected wrongdoing, they had no evidence of it, and so all was well.

Some might say that there is no such thing as a minor ethical lapse. I disagree. I think there are minor ethical lapses all the time–many of them unconscious or inadvertent.

Absolute standards are hard to find in the world.

The disaster comes when the minor lapses are allowed to survive, replicate, and grow.

Back to the Beginning

I’ve probably whipsawed between two very different standards of ethical care in this quick article: Deflated footballs to trillion dollar systemic disasters.

The key point of this article is that if a dominant meme can emerge in a day or two that excuses an alleged break of a fundamental rule because “the Patriots would have won anyway;” then it’s worth stopping and examining whether that kind of thinking is pervasive in our own professional lives.

I’m not sure it’s possible to treat all people with every possible connection to us with the same, conscious approach to humane ethics. There’s always the next cause, care, or critique that will arise.

But, as Socrates said: The unexamined life is not worth living.