Tag Archive for: Leadership

The One About Performance

/1 Comment/in , /by

Performance is the prerequisite for any professional or organization.  It is the heartbeat of the body.

In December I posted an article on the lights of leadership. In the midst of a lot of feedback I receive on the writing I’ve done, one bit of feedback stood out on that particular piece.

It came from a gentleman who has been both a corporate leader and entrepreneur. In referring to the ways I listed to “light the lights of leadership” he said simply: “I’m glad you started with performance.”

It’s not clear to me that performance “sells” on LinkedIn or your average blog quite like a list of 5 things that will bring you wild success.

But, people who know, know.

I’ve had the privilege to write about a broad set of topics. I enjoy thinking through and sharing on strategy, leadership, entrepreneurship, innovation, and ethics. I view those topics as worthwhile to anyone looking to advance their careers and organizations.

However, there’s a point of fact that sometimes gets muddied up in all the organizational development, touchy/feely, and “strategic” thinking.

Performance is the prerequisite.

No matter what the collective business and organizational intelligentsia write and speak on, it all must relate back to performance–short term and/or long term.

That’s not to say that it does.

That’s to say that it should.

A leader with the best ideas on and reputation for people leadership, organizational development, and customer care but without a track record of performance might as well change careers.

To borrow a turn of phrase from the apostle Paul: If I have leadership ability that can move mountains, but do not have performance, I am nothing.

That may sound harsh and cold, but that’s reality.

It’s true whether you are a concert pianist or an investment banker. It’s true for athletes, doctors, and police officers.

It’s true whether you are trying to carry a football across a goal line, or seeking 20 basis points of alpha.

How often we forget this simple reality.

Performance is the currency of our careers and the building block of our professional names.

But, performance itself may be insufficient

If you look at the body of any leader’s work, the heartbeat is performance.  Results delivered by that person matter that much!

But, even a comatose patient has a heartbeat, so there’s much more to leading a than simply meeting objectives. The heartbeat is a critical necessity, though it may not be sufficient for a thriving, vibrant organization.

In my experience only very rare business cultures can hang their hats on performance alone. They look like professional sports teams and trading desks. I’ve been a part of both; and I’ve been around dozens of other corporate and organizational cultures.  I’ll just assert this:  It’s unlikely that your organization can rise (or fall) to this level of Darwinian objectivity.

Thus, we discuss results and leadership and vision and integrity all within the realm of the performance ethic.

The Performance Ethic

Show me a person who has a strong performance ethic, and I’ll show you someone who will likely contribute every day.

Show me someone with a strong performance ethic layered over with people skills and “other-oriented” values, and I’ll predict career success.

Performance ethic.

That is a concept that his highly distinct from work ethic.

Lots of people work hard and don’t perform.

It’s also highly distinct from smarts, intelligence, savvy, and the like.

Perhaps shockingly, it’s also highly distinct from a desire to “win.”

Winning matters, but it’s the definition of the contest that matters more.

As anyone who has participated in high stakes negotiations can tell you: Some of the best “win-preventers” are people who focus on winning the minutiae and lose sight of directional victory.

In American football, a lot of 15-yard penalties come from guys trying to win the little things (like that fight with the guy across from them) while losing sight of the bigger things.

The same thing happens in professional life.

A short win is just as easily part of a long defeat as a long victory. Ask any endurance athlete what constitutes effective performance, and the answer is most certainly not going to be “run every moment as fast as your body will go.” It just isn’t possible. You run the race so that you will win; but that does NOT mean winning every lap, stage, or heat.

None of us wants to be a part of a long defeat.

So what?

Let me outline a few ideas for what constitutes a performance ethic for leaders. This list will be incomplete. Trust me. Please help me round it out if you like.

  • A strong concept of performance: In short: What is the race? Is it quarterly financial performance or an enterprise positioned for success 3 years from now? How do you manage some of the tensions inherent to the two? What’s true north and do executives, rank, and file align on it?
  • A superior understanding of others’ concepts of performance: Do you understand what “winning” is to those around you and those who are instrumental to the race? One person’s concept of “performance” is earning the highest bonus possible. Another’s is building for the future. Yet a third person’s concept is simply staying employed or protecting position. Another wants only to advance her career. A person with a solid performance ethic assesses these things and determines whether he or she can “win” with the team they have or are a part of.
  • Daily delivery and ownership: Strong delivery today against the vision for tomorrow is a hallmark of a person with a performance ethic. Performers know that daily improvement underpins performance. Procrastination doesn’t.
  • An expansive view: Making performance an expansive thing shared by more vs. a contractive thing shared by fewer is an indication of a strong performance ethic. People who know business performance know that the pie grows with performance. The stereotypical bureaucrat only looks to divide the pie as it exists today.
  • Ability to attract others to a performance vision: The more senior you are, the more you must inspire others. Being able to attract talented people, inspire them, and have them deliver on a performance vision aligned with your own is certainly an aspect of performance ethic.
  • Transparent performance contracts: Allow others to get on or off the boat with real informed consent and high integrity risk sharing. An underlying theme to “Enlightened Strategic Leadership” in my practice is that social contracts within a firm should be transparent, particularly when they are in conflict. If you have a policy, follow it. Most (not all) organizations start this with their employee handbook.

Let’s talk performance.

Without performance, all the focus we see on LinkedIn about people, personalities, and career is just noise.

Performance is the prerequisite.

Author’s note:  Just as in most things, there is more than one way to “success.”  I hold out performance as the prerequisite. Many, many people hang their hat on patronage and politics for “success.”  I suggest we peer through those things and look at performance. 

How to Punch Through Adversity

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

A renewed focus on individual and organizational entrepreneurship provides a “puncher’s chance” when dealing with ambiguity and adversity.

On November 5, 1994, an object lesson in responding to adversity occurred.

On that date, 45-year old boxer George Foreman–known as much at that time for being the spokesmodel for his eponymous grill as for his boxing–knocked out Michael Moorer, who was up to that point the undefeated reigning World Heavyweight Boxing Champion…and 19 years Foreman’s junior.

Moorer outboxed Foreman for nine rounds, turning Foreman’s face into a fleshy swollen mess. During those nine rounds, Foreman struggled to throw punches and certainly didn’t evade many thrown at him.

And then, in the tenth round… Boom.

Foreman, well known for his punching power, slipped in a short right hand that crushed Moorer’s chin, knocked him to the canvas, and won Foreman the championship for the second time after a 20 year hiatus.

Here’s that classic 10th round on video:

Note the comment from Foreman’s corner man at the beginning of the video:

We gotta put this guy down…we’re behind, baby!

They knew they were losing. Foreman had eaten a steady meal of Michael Moorer’s right jab.  He was way behind and beaten badly.

Foreman was old, heavy, slow, and beaten up going into that 10th round. Moorer was young, fast, strong, fit, and ahead in the bout.

But, Foreman had a chance. His chance was embodied in his wrecking ball of a right hand.

That “chance” put Moorer’s lights out at 2:12 of the video.

The Lesson…

There’s this thing in boxing. It’s called the “puncher’s chance.” It means that a boxer with a strong punch–a go-to skill that can turn a bout on a dime–always has a chance to win. The puncher’s chance applies to those who have it even when they are the lowliest underdogs facing the most superior of opponents.

It doesn’t guarantee a win, but it offers the light of hope to those who have it, even in the midst of a beating. It is literally a means of punching through adversity.

So What?

We all should aspire–individually and in the teams and organizations we lead–to have a foundational capability that helps us punch our way out of adversity. In the most dire of circumstances, having a core capability to call on can mean the difference between having a chance and having none.

We should aspire, in other words, to cultivate a puncher’s chance.

In simple terms, the puncher’s chance in a business environment is a valued capability that, regardless of environment, allows an individual or an enterprise to endure, grow, and prosper.

Be careful, though: For every true cultivated go-to capability, there’s an mountain of pablum about “competitive advantage” and “core competencies” to wade through.

There’s also that catch about “valued” capability–be careful not to claim the ability to spin and confabulate as constituting a valued capability. It isn’t. It’s a delaying tactic just waiting to be exposed.

So, what gives you a puncher’s chance?

What foundational capability gives you your best chance to overcome adversity, individually or as the leader of an entire enterprise?

Is it superior operations? Sales? Marketing? Product development and innovation? Design? Supply chain expertise? Executive talent? Cost control? Effort and work ethic?

In reality, that’s for you to answer. It might be different for you.

In my estimation, the best analogy to the puncher’s chance in business is a deep seated appreciation for and cultivation of

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

It’s the crushing right hand just looking for a chin to demolish. It’s the single latent capability that can save an organization time and time again, regardless of market context.

Unfortunately, it’s also the capability that gets quashed most quickly by risk-averse and resilience-starved corporate hierarchies.

Still, in the most staid corporate contexts you’ll encounter, where cost control and small thinking rules the day, it is on the shoulders of a few enterprising individuals and teams that success tends to ride. Those individuals drive activities like:

  • Development of profitable new products and markets that nobody in the corporate hierarchy wanted.
  • Development of new customer accounts that others viewed as too hard, too distant, or too far off strategy.
  • Growth of key leaders who renew the organization in tough times
  • Response to muted customer inquiries that turn into significant opportunities
  • Establishment of entire new businesses that feed off the capabilities of the organization in entirely new ways.
  • Constant focus on competitive activity and required responses, acting as the few sentinels for the health of the organization.

In the process, the individuals and teams who do these things create possibilities where none existed…

…and that, my friends, is what the puncher’s chance is all about–a very real something from an apparent nothing.

But, how do you cultivate it?

On some level, it’s fair to debate whether entrepreneurship as a capability is a nature or nurture proposition. I’d argue that entrepreneurial capability can not only be taught, but that it is also contagious.

The flip side is that it is also easily extinguished.

In any event, if you are looking to cultivate this particular punch, here are 5 ways to start:

  • Establish clarity on boundaries – Ensure that you achieve clarity on what values apply (i.e., what you won’t do) and what boundaries exist (i.e., where you won’t do it). This applies to you and to your organization.
  • Relentlessly encourage resourcefulness – The most ossified of organizations fall into the trap of top down management. People in the organization become so used to being second guessed that they never even bother with the first guess and therefore lose whatever entrepreneurial spirit they had. Encouraging resourcefulness means asking for, listening to, and developing novel perspectives on markets and solutions to pressing issues vs. telling the answer. It also means holding yourself to a standard of generating options vs. finding problems.
  • Generate risk awareness – Ensure that leaders in the organization have a sense of ownership and understanding of the price of risk. This can be done through incentives, but also through mere transparency around how capital of all sorts is allocated within the enterprise. Such transparency shows smart people the types of risks a company is willing to underwrite and reward. For you individually, establish thresholds for risks you are willing to take with your career, your income, and your wealth.
  • Role model resilience – In an odd and ironic point of fact, senior executives in large organizations tend not to be all that tolerant of ambiguity or error. That reality is a driver of the great divide between the mindset of an entrepreneur and the mindset of a solid corporate manager or executive. Corporate managers look at a project and see all the risks, the reasons not to do it, and how to effectively hedge the budget. Entrepreneurs tend to look at a project and wonder why it can’t be done faster and better; all the while disregarding any need for hedging because “you win some and lose some.” Execs need to role model a resilient mindset more often.
  • Reward entrepreneurship asymmetrically – Though such an assertion flies in the face of the world of compensation hierarchies, benchmarks, job classes and bands, and workplace equity; find ways to recognize and compensate intelligent risk takers asymmetrically. Too often, the perceived cost of entrepreneurship exceeds the potential recognition or upside. It tends to look more like executives and shareholders providing a “heads I win, tails you lose” proposition when viewed from the lower end of the hierarchy. Share the wealth…Loudly.

No matter how beaten up your organization is in its markets, how many product launch failures you’ve endured, how much market share you’ve seen erode; the ability to constantly redefine and attack markets and problems with an entrepreneurial edge gives you and your organization a puncher’s chance.

These tips work for enterprises large and small, and certainly work for individual professionals. History is rife with examples. Apple Computer emerged from being a PC maker to being a dominant player in mobile and media markets. Texas Instruments was once an oil and gas exploration services company. GE was Thomas Edison’s hobby shop. IBM made mainframes.

But, watch out!

Perspective matters. Many of you reading this think you know your core ability…”I have it, it’s my competitive advantage and it’s X” (fill in the X with your known strength). Keep in mind that while you might be the fit, strong champ in control of the bout, the other guy just might have a stone cold right fist to throw your way.

The other guy might have a puncher’s chance. Watch out for it.

Today, executives believe that 46% of global strategies fail to deliver. So many companies are trying to develop agility top-down in order to respond to a rapidly changing environment.

We simply can’t rely on top-down thinking driven by corporate savants to save the day.

So, cultivate a tight focus on entrepreneurial mindsets alongside loose control over skilled people.

Do it to drive wins, even while choking on the modern world’s heavy dose of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.

Cultivate your own puncher’s chance.

Find a way to win.

@GeoffTWilson

/0 Comments/in , /by

We bring light as leaders through deliberate and constant focus on doing so. I invite you to share examples below.

Here we sit in the middle of the holiday season.

I’m here–with the freedom of conscience, thought, and expression afforded some of us in this world–reflecting on the past year and its many lessons. As I do so, I am pondering what this season of giving means to all of us who count ourselves as leaders, particularly the subset of us who strive to be enlightened leaders.

To wit: I’ve been struck over the past year with the conviction that the word “enlightened” really is the key. Anyone can occupy a position of power. Some are there due to merit, some due to happenstance, and some simply through the laziness of those who place them there. Some–those who count position and power as the ultimate ends–cast a cloud of darkness on those they lead.

The gist is this: We can “be” in a leadership position without “being” a leader. The choices we make determine whether we fulfill the role.

Bringing enlightenment–whether it be in strategic, personal, financial, fiduciary, or operational matters–is the ineluctable, essential imperative in this age of reaction, speed, spin, and selfishness. Too many lives and livelihoods ride on the backs of leaders these days–in the old days it was the bureaucracy and the rules–for leaders not to put their focus on the highest and best aspirations.

But, if you are reading this, you know that platforms like LinkedIn posts, personal blogs, and other media are sometimes used to point out what ought not be done.

I’m not going there with this one. I’m going to abide by the old saying that goes:

It’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

And, so I thought I’d reflect for a minute, in the midst of Chanukkah and on the verge of Christmas, on what it means to “light a candle” as a leader. And, then, to ask you to share as well.

Both Chanukkah and Christmas celebrate the lighting of miraculous lights in their own way. Perhaps as leaders you, dear reader, and I might aspire to something short of that, but to something enduring nonetheless. So…

5 ways to light a candle as a leader

(Hundreds of others exist…Please share yours below)

1. Perform – Deliver the numbers, the project, the deal, the plan. Yes, setting a standard of performance is the first and foremost kindling of the light of leadership. Results, as they say, matter. Capability matters. Establishing a bar of performance…a standard or an expectation that others can see and understand; actually will set you apart as a leader in this day of spin and historical revision. Nobody really wants to follow a phony or a fraud.

2. Believe – Have confidence in those around you, and show it. At the root of inspirational leadership is faith the leader shows in those he or she leads. Stretch them. Challenge them. Coach them. But most of all, prove that you believe in them. Listening to them is a good start.

3. Build – Be the one who leaves something of value when you go. Focus not merely on the number of stones you lay this day, week, month, or year; but also on the ultimate edifice you are constructing. If you can’t envision the edifice, then neither can those you lead…So, stop. Even the most forthright stonemason wants to know what he’s building. Think about what you are building. This goes for the business or organization you are driving today: Earnings growth? Yes, but also longer term value! It also goes for the people you lead: Sure, they are in it for the money, but where are their careers going under your leadership? Unless your social contract is explicitly transactional (which is perfectly fine as long as it’s explicit and mutual)…Build!

4. Share – Give a piece of yourself to those you lead. The act of sharing doesn’t have to be intense or strenuous, but it ought to be sincere. Share how you’ve succeeded. Reflect on a failure or challenge. Note how you’ve been inspired by others. Share something of value to those around you that is about you but not shared for your benefit (that includes wallowing in the negative…rarely a good thing). 96% of people seek personal meaning in the relationships they have. Consider that.

5. Thank – Admit you can’t do it alone. Take the time to say thank you…yes, even for effort and not outcome. It’s true that people work for a paycheck; but none of us wants a team full of paycheck players…They rarely win.

I can think of so many others that have meant so much to me; but I’ll leave it at that. Now, it’s your turn…

I don’t always leave a call to action at the bottom of my posts. In this case, I’d very much like to hear from readers on how leaders have lit the way in readers’ professional or personal lives. If you feel so compelled, please share something ever so briefly in the comments section below.

Do it in the spirit of the season; and perhaps to enhance the endurance of enlightened leadership everywhere.

Please share…

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, Season’s Greetings, and God bless!

Geoff Wilson is a strategy executive focused on the articulation of practical strategic principles for leadership and performance. If you follow people on Twitter, you might consider following him: @GeoffTWilson

View this and other posts at the Wilson Growth Partners, LLC Blog.

The End of Honesty?

/0 Comments/in /by

I came across this article by Victor Davis Hanson on the prevalence of lying to advance agendas of all sorts.

Link

I admit, it struck me as a very timely if somewhat political angle on a problem that is significant in our society.  Namely, the tendency of some leaders (and VDH is decidedly focused on the political realm, but this absolutely extends into the business and community realms) to lie with impunity when doing so aids their position.

Hanson coins the term “Painless Mendacity.”

It is brilliant.

He states that some among us believe that there is no downside to lying as long as it advances one’s agenda.

My belief on lying is very much like Bear Bryant’s view of quitting:  The first time you do it, it’s hard.  The second time, it gets easier.  The third time?  You don’t even think about it.

Upholding a standard of honesty and integrity is hard; especially when you have tacit permission to lie.

But then again, nobody said it would be easy.

Your turn.  Are we at the end of honesty? 

Bill Gross: Debt Binge Worthy of Future Scorn

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Bill Gross says future generations will view the global debt run-up of the past 6 years like we now view smoking on airplanes…misguided or just plain stupid.

Janus’ Bill Gross released an investment outlook today that is a painfully good read.

Your Link

His thesis:  That future generations are going to look at this one and say “How could they do that?” when it comes to running up debts the way we have in the past several years.

For those scoring at home, the U.S. National Debt stands above $18 Trillion as of today.  That, of course, looks trifling in the face of the U.S.’s $115 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.  Regardless of what you call them, they are promises to pay; and they are big ones.

An always interesting link is the U.S. Debt Clock.  Try it out; but keep a bucket handy.

The U.S., of course, isn’t alone; and that is what makes Gross’ read so interesting.  There may be no place left to hide soon.

In his outlook, Gross lodges multiple protests.  He states that while debt fueled recoveries from debt caused recessions are possible, they must have three preconditions to be so…

1. A non-fatal structural starting point (that is, countries can’t be insolvent at the start…)

2. Alignment of monetary and fiscal policies (especially that fiscal policy should take advantage of loose money to invest in accretive infrastructure)

3. Willing participation by private investors (they have to stay in the market even as yields are driven down and asset prices up beyond any realistic point of further appreciation).

It’s clear that all preconditions are/were not present in all countries pursuing the “borrow or monetize your way to freedom” strategy.  At the end of the day, fiscal, monetary, and investment indicators have to point toward kickstarting consumption and investment in the real economy.  It’s not clear to Gross (or me) that this has happened. If anything, Gross points to massive inconsistencies in political and market sentiments.

This is a fantastic read.  One that is well worth your time.

The implication?  Well, I posted last week about lower energy prices being a wake up call for business leaders to re-set scenarios for the future.  In this case, Gross is essentially saying that financial investors might do well to get out of markets sooner rather than later.  His quote:

Markets are reaching the point of low return and diminishing liquidity. Investors may want to begin to take some chips off the table: raise asset quality, reduce duration, and prepare for at least a halt of asset appreciation engineered upon a false central bank premise of artificial yields, QE and the trickling down of faux wealth to the working class.

Ouch.  That’s the implication.  Bursting of high valuations by investors fleeing to quality and going short could very much signal a period of deflation; then who knows what…?

Photo credit: Lendingmemo

Activist Investors and How to Handle Them

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Activist investors may become more active–spurring management to focus and accelerate.

 

Fortune’s Paul Hodgson filed this article yesterday about how activist investors are becoming even more active.

It’s a good read that summarizes the influence of activist hedge funds and the like; and how that influence is growing into the Fortune 500-sized company space.

Hodgson’s point of view is that we should look for more activism because, well, it works.  Success breeds success.

His defining quote is at the end of the article:

Boards are crumbling in front of the [activists] because the value released by changes they are forcing through is making it more likely that other shareholders will support them.

It really is that simple. If an activist like Carl Icahn can campaign for eBay to sell PayPal, and subsequently “unlock” trapped value, then so be it.

Recently, there has been a spate of debate and discussion about how activists can create incentive misalignment.  In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal yesterday, reader Jonathan Kaufelt laments the lack of incentive alignment in the Dow Chemical Board of Directors case.  You may recall that there has been an ongoing discussion of whether activist investor Daniel Loeb’s scheme to pay his director nominees for near term stock appreciation is conducive to good governance.

A reasonable person could say that such incentive structures are problematic more for their mis-allocation (not all directors hold the incentives) than for their mis-alignment. There might be a temporal conflict with fiduciary duty, but it’s not clear that the conflict is one that other shareholders would mind (which would be the point of Hodgson’s Fortune article).

In other words, the activists may be amplifying existing incentives to boost near term stock performance; but might not be an issue to those who own the company.  This gets into a more existential view of value creation and “long term” investing where the question is whether a shareholder’s objective ought to be to maximize value of holdings today (the “activist” vision) or to create an investment vehicle for all time (the “investor” vision).

On those things, reasonable people can disagree.  In the case of a public company, it’s reasonable to say that all shareholders ought to be ready to vote with their feet–or sell orders as the case may be.

Another view–my view–is that activists, by stirring the pot, actually serve a purpose that should normally be served by right functioning boards in the first place:  They sharpen management’s focus on value creation vs. sleepy backslapping boondoggles.

For CEOs and boards, the best prevention program for the pains of activism is–wait for it–to act like an activist.  Ironically, activists often create the pressure of scrutiny where it should have already been.

I welcome your thoughts…

Energy Shocks Put a Premium on Foresight

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

The current sea change in energy markets brings the need for foresight to the front stage.

 

Foresight feeds the foundation of strategy.  The ability to read and react to the likely future defines organizations and executives.

On November 25th, energy expert Daniel Yergin (writer of The Prize among many other interesting books and articles) appeared on CNBC to outline the impact of revolutionary changes in U.S. oil and gas production.  Here’s the Link. Video here.

The upshot?  The U.S. is becoming a bellwether energy producer…so much so that Russia and OPEC are losing sleep over how to handle the ocean of oil and gas that is slated to come from the U.S. in the next few years.

Subsequent to Yergen’s commentary–on Thanksgiving day–OPEC chose not to alter its production schedule.  This was a move to maintain share at the expense of price. The decision sent oil prices plummeting more than 10 percent on Friday.  Here is CNBC’s report on that.

So, what?  

These issues impact you, your organization, your city, state, and country.  Pick an affinity that you have–any affinity–and this news matters.

Imagine first a future where energy stays cheap. Imagine that the economics of the petrochemical supply chain are severely impacted by low prices.  Maybe the dynamics crush upstream commodity producers.  Maybe they enhance smart specialty producers who benefit from consumer spend and lower commodity costs.  However, lower energy prices directly impact players who depend on energy production, particularly in specific geographies. Laborers in geographies that lie on the high end of the cost curve might not enjoy this news; neither will suppliers to those work-forces–the ones that provide uniforms, tools, meals, and services like laundry and transportation. The more localized the impact, the worse it could be.

But every shock means opportunity.  So, meanwhile…

Imagine second a future where consumer and corporate disposable income is unlocked from the dungeon of costly energy.  Where an average family receives a dividend that amounts to real cash to spend, just because the world has become more efficient at extracting (and, yes, using) energy.   Imagine that the average manufacturer can also contemplate reinvestment of such gains.

Those two imaginary impacts of lower energy prices are strikingly significant to all companies, whether they play in the petrochemical space or not.   Now is the time to contemplate change (yes, 2011 was the time, but still, get on board now).

What does this mean for your end products?  How about for your capital projects? What about for your procurement targets and programs? Perhaps more importantly, what does this mean for your job?

The market-wide impact of energy costs is practically instantaneous.  In 2008, we saw a tremendous reallocation of production in the automotive industry due to sustained spikes in oil prices.  SUV and truck plants were closed, not just idled, as reality set in.  Demand for efficient vehicles spiked as well, spurred by some (perhaps spurious) legislation in that era.  Such corporate moves dwarf in relation to moves that consumers make as energy costs crowd out other spend categories.

What will this sort of change mean for your company or your career?  How do you sense and predict what different end states of the world look like, and how each one impacts your capital and expense allocation?

Think about the the future, and develop options for it.  Options are the foundation of strategy, and foresight feeds them.

What do you think? 

The Leadership Trait Nobody Talks About…

/2 Comments/in /by

Rediscover grace as a part of your leadership approach…and look for it in others’.

 

 

What’s a fundamental difference between a professional whose career is summed up as “noble leader” and one whose career can be summarized as “tyrant?”

Grace.

For those of us who believe in a constrained view of the world…one where actions have consequences and consequences are real things; the concept of grace can be a hard one.

Grace, put simply, is unmerited favor. It’s something for nothing.

Just where exactly, you might ask, does that belong in business?

I have spent my career driving performance on investment returns, growth, cost, and productivity. I’m a consistent proponent of competitive intensity, performance and professionalism. These things are fundamental to success in the for-profit world.

So, isn’t it impossible to build “grace” into a culture of performance? Isn’t “performance” supposed to be a maximum Net Present Value, no-holds-barred, social Darwinist drive for the greatest efficiency possible, TODAY, grace be damned?

In short? No.

The most mature performance cultures build grace into their models of leadership because they also build risk taking into it. The latter cannot be sustained without the former. A performance culture that pillories its unsuccessful risk takers will eventually have no risk takers left. Such is the reality of incentives.

Because we as leaders in our organizations, churches, and communities, have power; we must understand and remember the notion of grace and how it relates to performance and value creation.

We’ve all received the benefit of grace from leadership or fellowship at some point in our lives, whether we acknowledge it or not:

  • Maybe it was that time when you got sick and were able to turn in your term paper late, saving you that last few credits for graduation.
  • Maybe it was the time you flubbed the numbers on the project justification, should have been reprimanded, but were coached instead.
  • Maybe it was the time your husband sat quietly while you bitterly criticized him.
  • Or, when you tapped your car into another in a parking lot and the old guy whose car you hit just smiles and says “no harm, no foul.”
  • Perhaps it was when one of your direct reports at work forgave you–fully–for a stress-laden tirade where your “f-bombs” flowed freely, you threw things, and perhaps kicked a wall or two.
  • Or, when your best friend pretended not to notice when you said something really awful to his girlfriend over a petty issue.
  • Perhaps–and this one hits close to home for me–you once got into the game before you were really good enough to merit it.
  • Finally, it might be the many thousands of instances of grace that reside in your blind spots–the grace extended to you when you didn’t know you needed it extended. That time you talked for half an hour about yourself and your hobbies and everybody listened to you without telling you what a boor you were comes to mind.

Reflecting on instances like these can make you a better leader; and let’s be honest, a better citizen.

Most people keep some sort of reciprocal account in their heads for the moments of grace they have been fortunate to receive. I find that I’m at my most thankful when I reflect on them (and no, not all of those listed above are mine). However, some among us keep a reciprocal account for the opposite of grace–the perceived slights or moment of disobedience we experience from people who know better than to cross us.

That account is what leads to vindictiveness. That account leads to personal pain. It leads to the inability to forge deep relationships because people constantly seek to avoid your glare and blame.

These two accounts are branches of the same roots of rational and emotional realities. Debits and credits of the brain–a commitment to reciprocity–are basically a part of our being communal animals. They lead us down two paths as leaders.

We are graceful, or we are vindictive.

We are the sheepdog, or we are the wolf.

One of us sees the world around us as worth saving and growing. This one sees performance as a prerequisite for success and drives it, but with a code of dignity and grace.

The other harbors the innate contempt that the predator has for the sheep.

In real life, people you know are representative of both personalities. It’s up to you and me to figure out who among us is leading in order to protect, grow, and edify; and who is leading in order to devour.

It’s also up to you and me to establish a code that gives a head nod to grace and therefore to risk taking.

Sometimes it’s hard to tell the figurative sheepdogs from the figurative wolves. Both are beautiful animals. Both are also capable of immense, violent action at the moment of provocation. There is no net-present performance advantage to being a wolf–don’t let anyone tell you differently. Still, if you look for visible signs of grace–not favor for people who are “useful” but rather true, unmerited favor…you will know the difference.

A final thought: A common meme in our western business culture is that “there is no loyalty anymore.”

Loyalty is the followership equivalent of leadership grace.

Perhaps followers no longer see enough grace from their leaders to merit loyalty in abundance.

In other words, perhaps you see no loyalty because they see no grace.

Perhaps its time to start talking about grace in leadership again.

Geoff Wilson appreciates the grace he has received, especially for the stress-laden tirade.

Get a Grip and Let Go

/0 Comments/in /by

Just what, exactly, is all that control doing for you?

 

 

Insights are everywhere.

On October 18th, I accompanied my 9-year old daughter to a birthday party for a younger cousin.

We had a fantastic time. During the party, the kids, both the younger ones and the older ones, were playing with (helium) balloons.

When it came time to leave, my daughter–an artistic, free spirit with a penchant for unique insights–walked outside of the home, balloon held firmly by the ribbon in her hand, before everyone else.

I watched her look to the sky, slowly release her balloon, and watch it with a big smile on her face as it floated away into the evening sky.

Many, many of instances of an unfettered balloon have led to tears in my family (no, not from 9 year-olds, but still).

I stepped outside and said to her: “Oh, no! You lost your balloon.”

Her response? “No, I let it go.”

Me: “Why?”

Her: “Because I like to watch them fly away.”

I was so impressed.

She gained happiness from releasing a balloon that she could have otherwise kept tethered as it lost its buoyancy without ever reaching greater heights. And, guess what? 2 other kids that walked out at that moment let theirs go after hearing her explanation.

It was contagious, and fun.

That moment was a reminder to me of an important leadership concept that I have learned and mentioned to groups over time: The concept of leading with an open hand. Letting go of ground level control in order to allow talent to find its own level in anticipation of greater things.

Management gurus talk about openness, collaboration, encouraging autonomy, and empowerment all the time. All of these are easy, fun words to throw around. Even the worst leaders I’ve encountered believe in these words as management tools.

It’s the actions behind these words that are hard.

Why?

They are hard because your own early leadership development (in your early career, parenting, or otherwise) depended on skills that actually become success inhibitors the more you and your children, employees, or other influencees progress.

Maturing as a parental or organizational leader of any sort means that:

  • You go from directing your children (iron fist, velvet glove) to influencing them.
  • You go from managing people (plan and do) to leading them (check and adjust).
  • You go from a problem solving approach that revolves around telling the process and answer to one that revolves around asking the right questions and motivating people.
  • You go from a resource deployment approach that is essentially a zero ambiguity, zero sum budgeting and directing process to one that is more about allocating, iterating, and “growing the pie.”
  • You go from a people development approach that revolves around “your” people to one that revolves around “their” careers.

All of these are examples of moving from a closed handed approach (tight control, turf, ownership, and direction) to an open handed one (guiding, influencing, motivating, cultivating, and freeing).

Figuring this out just might be the difference between admirable management success and true executive competence.

Some never do figure it out; and it shows.

So what?

Be willing to release your people, your agendas, and your resources in order to stretch and test them. It might bring you satisfaction beyond what control ever could.

After all, a balloon tethered to the ground is impressive; but not nearly as impressive as one surfing the wind.

If you love something, set it free. Let things go to see if they grow. You can regain control, but you might never find out what is possible if you don’t merely set expectations and then allow the slack for your people to explore, learn, and grow.

You might unlock more joy and success, not to mention trust and confidence, in the process.

And, it might be contagious.

Geoff Wilson hopes that his children grow up with an understanding of how much they have inspired him.

What Problem Solving Isn’t…

/0 Comments/in /by

Watching out for some critically bad behaviors can improve your effectiveness as a problem solver.

 

This is the first of a few posts I’ll share on the topic of problem solving.

We in the professional ranks toss the concept of “problem solving” about like it’s a common sense concept. It isn’t. Problem solving is about being effective in moving forward with a potential solution to a given problem—regardless of scoring political, influence, or style points unrelated to the solution. It is with this focus on effectiveness that I’m posting on the topic.

Let me say up front that I lay no claim to being among the problem solving elite. That is for others to judge. I offer my thoughts as more of an experienced social observer and capability builder on the topic. In practice, problem solving is messy, like most other things not written in textbooks.

Countless negative mindsets and behaviors masquerade as good problem solving, and we all need to be on the lookout for them. That’s the topic of this post.

As someone who has interviewed hundreds of aspiring problem solvers and worked alongside some of the best (and possibly some of the worst) in the world, I have gleaned a few points of view on what problem solving is NOT. So, in the interest of going negative from the start, let’s explore a few of them.

Problem solving is NOT being merely smart. Many very smart people are very bad problem solvers. Why? Really smart people suffer from a couple of common flaws that, if they aren’t known and mitigated, can derail problem solving. First, many really smart people are naturally oriented toward finding an answer vs. a direction. They have to learn to think in terms of risk and opportunity vs. correct and incorrect. Second, many very smart people suffer from the “smartest guy in the room syndrome;” meaning they struggle to listen to others’ viewpoints.

Great problem solvers are flexible and incorporate a very broad number of viewpoints.

Problem solving is NOT merely having excellent energy and drive. Action-orientation is a virtue. Practical action-oriented problem solving is as well. However, some leaders confuse the drive for action with the drive for effective action. Being driven in a business setting is an excellent virtue if it is combined with sensitivity, structure, and at least some patience.

Too much drive with too little collaboration can lead to a bullying approach to problem solving. Combined with power, mere drive can lead to problem solving via fear, and to the closing off of channels of communication. Oddly, excess drive leads to a lack of listening, just like too much “smarts.”

The urge to do something is a good one if it’s managed. Great problem solvers manage it.

Problem solving is NOT problem finding. Problem finders, or mere whiners, are out of scope here. While issue identification can be a positive skill, too often leaders and their subordinates use it as a passive aggressive pseudo problem-solving surrogate. Those who are talented at lobbing quasi-professional bombs by identifying other people’s problems may score points in some organizations’ political games, but they aren’t problem solvers.

In most professional contexts, I’d estimate that problem identification is less than 5% of the effort required. Great problem solvers don’t congratulate themselves for being great at spotting issues.

Problem solving is NOT solving the wrong problem. We all have our own skills and tools to apply to a given problem. Always keep in mind the proverb “To a person with a hammer, all problems look like a nail.” It’s powerful. A very common problem solving failure springs from misapplied expertise. How often have you observed the process expert seeing every problem in terms of process, or the patent expert seeing every problem in terms of intellectual property, or the talent expert pointing only to talent? Often, I’ll bet.

Great problem solvers reflect on the definition and potential solutions for a problem before acting.

Problem solving is NOT a heroic pursuit.With all due respect to the proverbial mad genius problem solver who comes up with truly novel solution to a very tough problem, your run of the mill problem solver is more likely to be a structured thinker, clear communicator, and fantastic networker who may not even be the person in front of the group when the problem is solved.

Many of the world’s best problem solvers are unsung heroes.

I could go on about what problem solving is NOT, but I won’t. You probably get the picture. The question to ask when presented with a behavior or a contribution to your team that doesn’t feel on point is “yeah, but will it make us more effective?”

“He’s so smart/driven/insightful/savvy!”

“Yeah, but does he make us more effective?”

It’s a simple test.

Please consider sharing thoughts on barriers to effective problem solving from your own experience.