09 Jan 10 The Glamour of Live TV

Being interviewed on live TV is fun. It truly is. The lights and set-up are cool, the fact that you are in front of a million people is neat and all-in-all I would recommend it to anybody who feels they have a message they want to bring and who has some sort of expertise that the media seeks or that you can make them agree that they need to seek.

Having said that, I just had an experience with Fox Business News that also serves as a reminder that live TV is, well, live. If you are going to do this you have to be comfortable with the fact that things will happen that are beyond your control and will either push you over the edge or turn into one of those funny stories that you can keep forever.

I recently did a Special Report on CEO New Year’s Resolutions. My findings…most CEOs are conservatively optimistic about 2010. Seventy-five chief executives responded to my question and I put all of this together into a multi-page report sharing the overall themes of the findings. Not the most earth-shattering news, but news that interested Fox Business.

Now, I have a love-hate relationship with Fox as they do with me I think. On the one hand, while fairly conservative, I am not nearly as anti-government as the “fair and balanced” station is. On the other hand, because I am also not a screaming, yelling liberal, I serve a purpose for them as a counter-opinion on some topics that they can use to balance their coverage to some degree. In other words, I’m not tremendously threatening but at the same time, they can engage in a bit of a debate with me.

I say all this to say that when I am on Fox I am always on my toes because they have a tendency to try to bait their interviewees into their particular point of view. They also do their remote tapings from some difficult settings. In this case I was at the Fox 2 station in Detroit but set up on a chair with a table and a camera. Period. No monitor or anything to see who I was speaking with…just a set up so I could be filmed. In those cases the only connection you have with the actual interviewer is a small earpiece that allows you to hear what is on the air. (This takes some getting used to as well because you are then essentially talking to yourself.)

So, on December 31st I knew that Fox would be focusing on the miserable 2009 and trying their darndest to make it all about the evil Democrats. My argument was that, once you get below the dozen or so leaders that we focus on in the media, most executives were ready to get on with it in 2010. I’m sitting on my stool, earpiece firmly in place and am given the 10 second warning that we are almost live.

Then the platform my chair was sitting on broke.

Then the earpiece popped out.

Then the reporter was on the other side and we were live. I knew this was the case because somewhere in the distance I could hear my name as Dagen McDowell began the piece. Additionally, I was holding onto the bottom of the table for dear life to keep from tipping over. That “fun” moment had become horrific because I could just imagine either not answering a question she asked because I couldn’t hear her and/or disappearing from the camera frame because my chair broke entirely.

You really need to watch the video if you haven’t seen it already. I look like Quasimodo all hunched over and at one point it looks like I’m going to get up and walk away. I didn’t answer the first question at all, got close with the second, and then…when the baiting question at the end came up…I disappointed Dagen with the fact that I didn’t bite. You really should see this…she actually points her finger at me as she says, “I beg to differ but that’s an argument for another day.”

By the way, that is a perfect ending to a media appearance like that. Her comment at the end will serve as an invitation in the future to be back on Fox News with a story about the difference between the average concerns of a CEO and the ones that are most often in the news. In other words, if the purpose of publicity is in some way to get more publicity, this has the potential of being highly successful.

Of course, if I had let go of that table and disappeared from the screen as my chair collapsed, I suspect that would have gotten as much publicity in the end. At least I would have appeared on the blooper reels for who knows how long!

Tags: accountability, CEO New Year's Resolutions, Global Leadership, leadership integrity, motivation, trust

23 Oct 09 Building a Performance Based Culture

The problem with bonus and compensation driven performance is two-fold. First, from a public relations standpoint, bonuses tick people off right now. Rightfully or wrongfully, the impression of entitlement rubs folks the wrong way as many are being laid off or having their salaries cut. To be honest, there are clearly cases where bonuses make no sense…for example in government bailed out companies where performance is not the issue, employment contracts are. Second, and more important for most leaders, monetary incentives are short-term activators. Whether you believe money motivates people or not, it does so only for a brief period. As soon as you feed the beast, it is hungry again.

The good news is that an organization based on performance does not have to be an expensive proposition. Pride is a much greater motivator than money any day. Unfortunately, because you have pride in your organization doesn’t automatically mean your employees see it the same way. Leaders tend to be leaders because they already have a drive for performance and success. Instilling this element in the culture of the organization takes an intentional effort.

For people to be committed to performance in their work, there are a few necessary elements that need to be in place:

1. A clear vision of what is to be achieved. Beyond just a laminated statement of some sort, this vision has to be of a future state with a road map and some direction for achieving the vision. If people know where they are going, and can track their progress toward those objectives, they can take ownership in the vision themselves. If the objective is not clear, or there is no way to monitor progress, followers will focus on the immediate tasks at hand only.

2. Autonomy in their work. This doesn’t mean that each employee should simply chose what they do and when they do it. Autonomy can take many forms. Depending on the nature of the job, the degree to which employees are able to make their own decisions and participate in creating their own work-world will determine how committed to this world they actually are. Lack of autonomy always means lack of accountability. If you make all the decisions about every detail, what do I have left to own.

3. Meaningful and engaging work. If the only way you can imagine the organization of your followers work is in a menial and mundane fashion, you can’t expect that your employees will be focused on performance. They might be focused on achieving a specific milestone or measure but you will have to continually reinforce the measure to get the performance. Humans are amazing creatures when it comes to adding significance to their work. If there is no significance, there is no reason to be engaged and perform.

4. A sense of community. This aspect is overlooked by many leaders trying to provide a motivational work environment, but your followers are social people. Feeling that we are all part of the same team, or that my co-workers and I share a set of values or interests, goes a long way in retention and motivation. A Performance-Based Culture is not one of individual success. It is one where our efforts to be successful are combined with those of a like mind.

Of course there is no silver bullet in establishing this mindset of performance. Leaders can’t dictate an atmosphere of camaraderie or a culture of achievement. Leaders can, however, create the circumstances that promote these elements. Focus on compensation to the point that it is fair and competitive but treat it only as one element of the workplace. Successful leaders engage their followers through interaction and relationship.

Tags: engagement, leadership integrity, performance

02 Oct 09 Change Acceptance Part 1

Any leader who has had any kind of training in change management is familiar with the standard model of change: First there is denial, then resistance, then exploration and finally acceptance. While this is a perfectly legitimate approach, I think there might be a more interesting and productive way to look at change. First of all, since change is actually not a topic that lends itself to “management,” I offer a view of “change acceptance.” Since change is inevitable, it is important as leaders to judge where our followers are on this acceptance continuum in order to gauge (a) how successful the change process has been and (b) what communication and support are needed at any given moment in time. Here is a simple and straightforward version of what I’m talking about:

1. Unaware. When change within an organization first begins, it is likely that there is a period of time where followers are not in denial, they are simply not aware of the change that is on the way. They may have a sense that there WILL be change, but in terms of understanding exactly what is happening, they are fairly clueless in this beginning phase.

2. Suspicious. As time goes on and more activity is underway, people become aware that there is SOMETHING happening and as a result start to look for explanations. If they find them, and the explanations are satisfying, then no problem. However, there is usually a period where there are more questions than answers. In this phase, people are trying to predict what is going to happen in order to prepare themselves. Even if they start hearing about it in formal communication, followers in this phase are trying to determine the “reality” of the situation.

3. Knowing. Eventually people become aware of what is up. They are involved enough, and see enough, to not only know for sure that change is happening, but to predict what the change will ultimately mean for them. This is perhaps the most crucial phase because it is here that people also decide whether they support the process or they will battle against it (actively or passively). Once you know there is a change afoot, you have the opportunity to pick sides. It is almost impossible for neutrality in this phase because anybody who cares about the organization or their future will be trying to determine their next step and what their actions should be.

4. Buying. In the positive sense, as people begin to understand what the new situation is and what the needs of the change process are, they will begin to buy-in to the process. They still see it as an externally driven phenomenon but they can decide to “enroll” and be a part of it. This stage takes some time to achieve but once there, the change takes on more internal momentum. In the negative sense, this is also where some people will decide that they know what the change means and they do not support it. These people will often check out of the process and simply not participate. Unfortunately, it is during this time as well that those who choose not to buy-in will often recruit others to be the negative forces in the process.

5. Owning. Ultimately, the change is adopted in the organization and becomes part of who you are and what you do. At some point, it is no longer an external force but becomes woven into the organizational culture. Again, this takes time…a long time. Managers often push their employees to get to the “ownership stage” faster than employees are comfortable (or able) to do. When your followers own the change, it is successfully implemented in your organization.

While this is a fairly simple description, it is extremely difficult to deal with in practice. Within each of these phases, followers are trying to sort themselves out and determine what to do next. There are actions you as a leader can put into place for each of these areas and we will talk about those in the next entry.

Tags: accountability, change, congruency, expectations, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity

23 Sep 09 Moving Into the Space

This is an interesting time for many who are in leadership positions because, on the one hand, they have either recently been promoted or recently taken on greater responsibility. As a result of reorganization or restructuring, I have met many people who have been promoted even at a time where the focus of the news is on those who have been laid off from their jobs. These are the “Survivor” leaders whose career advancement is bitter sweet. They are in new areas of responsibility with new employees but at a time (and sometimes speed) that they did not anticipate.

At the same time, there are, and will be, a large number of people who have new leadership roles, not because of negative business outcomes but because their business is in recovery. As much as we are skittish about whether or not the business world is really on the mend, now a year after Lehman’s demise, business are getting their feet back under them. This requires strong management and leaders who can take new positions with authority and success.

There are plenty of challenges to making this happen but one of the most difficult to figure out is how to take the role previously filled by somebody else and make it your own. If your predecessor was a well-loved figure, you have the challenge of “filling big shoes.” If your predecessor was a jerk, you have the additional challenge of letting people know that you are not the person who was there before you. In either case, while wanting to move at a speed that does not overly disrupt the lives of employees, you also need to start making things happen. The “I’m new in this position” response is short lived because, in your new position, you are expected to deliver results. New results as a new leader.

Tip #1: Be Authentic. Even if you are following one of the greatest leaders you have ever known, the last thing you want to do is try to be that person. I have seen this effort in its extreme but most often this is an effort to simply not change anything and maintain what the person before you has started. As far as some business practices, this might be a good idea if the practices are working. But in terms of the leadership style and method of the person before you, it hardly ever works. If they were loud and outgoing and you are more reserved and introspective, don’t try to become an extrovert because they were. Most leaders who try this imitative approach fail because they simply can’t pull it off. Employees don’t expect you too either.

Tip #2: Listen. Often leaders in new roles have the unbearable urge to start “doing something” immediately in order to establish that they are not the boss.While it is likely that there are expectations that you do, indeed, get things done, there is an opportunity at the onset of a new position to listen to those who are going to be impacted by your leadership. Even if this is a leadership position in an area where you have been working for 20 years, taking the time to listen to your new followers will not only send the message that you want to make changes together, it will start to cast you in the new light of your new position. No matter the urgency, have at least a few small group or one-to-one conversations with your employees about what they see as the priority and even what advice they have for you as the leader.

Tip #3: Let your predecessor go. By this I mean there is little or nothing constructive to talk about when it comes to the person who was in the position before you. In your very first communication with your new employees it may make sense to in some way honor the person who preceded you. But that’s about it. Whether they were great or terrible, they are now in the past. Don’t participate in the inevitable employee conversations about the “old days,” and don’t let comparisons drive your behavior. It is only normal that employees will, for awhile, measure your words and behaviors against those to which they have become accustomed. But that doesn’t mean you need to. Soon enough, the past will be behind you and continuing to evoke history, or compare yourself to the one who came before, will only make that transition more difficult.

When Jeffrey Immelt took the reins of GE he told people, “There is no way I am going to out-’Jack’ Jack.” The same is true for your new role. Don’t try to outdo somebody who is no longer in the picture. Be yourself, listen to your folks, and move on. Comparisons are inevitable but they should not drive any of your behavior. The problems that you inherited are now your problems and the fact somebody else may have created them is irrelevant. It is your chance to lead and to do it as only you can do.

Tags: authenticity, congruency, consistency, expectations, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity

20 Aug 09 The Leader’s Focus

As long as there are writers on the topic of leadership, there will be a debate about what qualities strong leaders should possess. I have also tossed in my offering to this list in earlier blogs and articles. The problem for all of us who think we “know” what it takes to be a successful leader is that most of our lists are somewhat dependent on context. In other words, of all of the possible characteristics successful leaders may hold, some will be successful with one set of characteristics while others will be successful primarily on the strengths of an entirely different set.

This is o.k. of course and why leadership is not really a robotic task. It takes the unique combination of strengths, talents and experiences of a leader to make leadership truly authentic for him or her. And that’s a great thing. To think that there is somehow a magic formula of just enough of one plus just enough of another is fairly ridiculous.

Having said that, I just read an article by Marshall Goldsmith called “Leading New Age Professionals” and published in the book “The Leader of the Future 2.” In this article, Goldsmith doesn’t try to tell us which qualities of a leader will make us successful (although like me, he has done that earlier as well), but he points out an even more important issue. Given the generation of followers, Goldsmith argues that the role of the leader rather than the specific characteristics, will drive success in the future. Specifically, Goldsmith states that success will be based on what the leader provides, not what the leader possesses.

I think that’s a rather brilliant way to look at the role of the leader…as one who provides for success. When he clarifies what he is talking about, Marshall Goldsmith states that leaders of the future must do the following for their followers:

Encourage their passion. Professionals need to look forward to coming to work in the morning. Loving their work is critical.
Enhance their ability. Look beyond the skills needed for today and help professionals learn the skills they will need tomorrow.
Value their time. Realize their time is precious also — don’t waste it.
Build their network. By enabling professionals to establish strong networks inside and outside the organization, you gain a huge edge and much loyalty.
Support their dreams. The best professionals are working for more than money; they have a dream of making a meaningful contribution in their field.
Expand their contribution. Provide them with opportunities that they cannot provide themselves.

As simple as this sounds, consider these provisions in light of the leaders that have been heralded in the past couple of decades. This is not so much Jack Welch or Lee Iaccoca or Ken Lewis is it? Not that these guys haven’t been successful in their own rights, but the point Goldsmith is making is that times are changing, followers are changing, and leaders will have to change as well.

Make sense? What do you think?

Tags: accountability, courage, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity, trust, vision

09 Apr 09 Richard Phillips: A True Leader of Integrity

This evening, I was asked to appear on the Fox Business News “Cavuto” show to answer the question, “Is there anything CEOs can learn from the leadership of Richard Phillips.” In case you don’t know, Phillips is the Captain of the Maersk Alabama, a container ship that was hi-jacked by Somali pirates. In an effort to protect his crew, Captain Phillips volunteered himself as a hostage after a failed skirmish by the pirates to take control of the ship. At the time of this writing, there is a standoff in the Indian Ocean as the American military with the help of FBI hostage negotiators try to bring the drama to a close.

I thought Cavuto’s question was an interesting one, albeit somewhat surprising. In fact my first thought was that it somehow minimized the dire situation that faced Captain Phillips. I mean really…what comparison is there between a life-or-death situation in international waters versus the leadership of corporate America? Of course once you stop and think of it that way, there are a number of similarities. I’m still not sure what Cavuto’s overall point was nor do I know if I delivered what they were looking for, but it did prompt some interesting thoughts concerning the question of comparison.

What finally occurred to me was that the greatest similarity, or lesson in this case, comes back to the issue of Leadership Integrity. I would argue that Captain Richard Phillips shows a very high Leadership Integrity Quotient(tm) and that sometimes it takes extreme cases like this for leaders to see the concept in action. Although there are those who are already arguing that what he did was not the appropriate response, I would say that he had no choice given his obvious strength as a leader. How does this relate to the LIQ and what can we learn?

Behaviors Exhibited Toward Others: There are times when a leader has to make a decisive action, based on an alignment of his beliefs and his leadership principles. Family members of Captain Phillips, and those who know him well, have said that they are not surprised that he chose this course. He is consistent in his willingness to stand by what he believes and his behavior matches his words. There is no hidden agenda here…it’s clear that he’s not all about the publicity, so his thought process and reasoning is transparent. And as a ship’s captain, he clearly believes he is capable to contribute to the resolution of this situation by being on the captor’s ship rather than safely on his own.

Attitudes Felt Toward Others: Captain Phillips also clearly feels that those left on the Maersk Alabama are capable crew members who will be able to operate without his close supervision. He trusts them with making the right decisions, as exhibited through putting his on well-being in the hands of them and others. His caring for his crew is clear and selfless…there is no question where the lives of his crew come in his overall set of priorities. Which brings us to the final and most important:

Values Held by Self: I think one of the most important lessons that can be learned from the behaviors of Captain Richard Phillips is that he did not have to wrestle with defining his values in this situation. He clearly did not have to ask himself which came first self, crew, ship or cargo. He already knew. And in the tradition of great captains, and leaders, the order was save the crew, then the ship, then the cargo, then self.

If leaders can observe this experience and leave with one major point, I think may be the last one. A leaders values are not formed in adversity…they are tested there. Regardless of what a leader may face in good times or bad, he or she has to know what they stand for. By having a clear view of what is important, and where their priorities lie, leaders can then implement the actions behind their values when challenged. From my observation of Captain Phillips, this is exactly what he did. He knew his priorities as the CEO of the Maersk Alabama and he knew what was most important. You can argue all day about whether the action was exactly the right one, but it doesn’t really matter. Leaders take action and then deal with the consequences based on what they believe to be right at the time.

I urge you to continue to hold Captain Phillips in your prayers as this ridiculous situation in the Indian Ocean plays out. At the same time, I would encourage you to reflect on your own crew, ship, cargo and self. Where would your priorities lie and what consequences are you willing to take for the sake of these priorities? I know for me this is a humbling question and an important one for you as a leader in your organization.

Tags: Captain Richard Phillips, Leadership Courage, leadership integrity, Maersk Alabama, Neal Cavuto, Somali Pirates, trust

23 Mar 09 Bill Davidson: A legacy of leadership

I had the honor a couple of years ago to interview Joe Dumars, former NBA Basketball great and currently president of the Detroit Pistons. My discussion with him was on leadership and establishing a team since, at that time, the Pistons were heading to the championship and were known for their unselfish and integrated play.

Two things really stood out for me in that interview. First, that Joe Dumars is a great leader, knows his stuff and sees the bigger picture. The second thing is, he is a humble man and truly an admirer of his boss Bill Davidson. Mr. D, as he was known, died on March 13th as a bigger than life icon of what a leader truly can be.

Although he owned Guardian Industries Corporation, the Palace of Auburn Hills, the DTE Energy Music Theatre and the Meadowbrook Music Festival, the Detroit Pistons (NBA), the Detroit Shock (WNBA) and the Tampa Bay Lightening (NHL), he was a man without the trappings or ego of today’s mega-business owner.

The Detroit Free Press recently quoted Mr. D in an interview with the Associated Press. “For any successful organization or business, you have to have integrity, “said Davidson. “And you have to make everything as straightforward as you can.” In September, before he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Bill Davidson also told Mitch Albom, “…I depend 100% on the people who are in charge of whatever they’re in charge of.” When asked if the Pistons were the best deal he had ever made (he purchased them in 1974 for $6 million…today they are valued at more than $500 million), he said in typical Davidson laughing style, “I don’t know…and to be honest, I don’t care.”

What he did care about was leaving the world in better shape than he found it. He donated millions to charities thorugh the William Davidson Institute. He was known as generous to a fault and a warm and loving man.

When we talk about leadership integrity, it is important to remember that the American Dream and the success that is available to anybody that works for it does not have to be a Ponzi scheme or a shortcut along the way. The legacy of a leader like Bill Davidson can be a stake-in-the-ground for what we mean when we say “Leader.” He will be missed, not just for his business acumen nor for his sponsorship of sports, but for his beacon of honesty and character. We are desperately in need today of the wisdom of men and women with the character and consistency of Mr. D. His example will be a role model for years to come.

Tags: detroit pistons, honesty, leadership character, leadership integrity, william davidson

17 Feb 09 Lack of Leadership is life-threatening

One of the reasons I focus on dialogue around leadership is because the outcomes of strong, value-based leadership can be so great. And the detriment of weak leadership can be so terrible.

Kenneth Kendricks, a manager at Peanut Corp of America’s Plainview Texas plant, said in an interview on Good Morning America yesterday that he repeatedly told Owner Stewart Parnell of the terrible conditions that eventually led to this company being the center of a largescale and murderous salmonella outbreak. See Kenneth Kindrick on Good Morning America

Summoned to Washington last week, Parnell repeatedly answered the questions of the House panel before which he appeared with, “…I respectfully decline to answer your questions based on the protections afforded me under the U.S. Constitution.“

Of course the damage is already done, but it is unbelievable to think that Parnell may have been aware that there were major health problems in his plant for months without addressing them in any way. Rather than taking responsibility for the situation and addressing it openly and with integrity, Mr. Parnell may be responsible for a salmonella outbreak that has sickened 600 people and to date has left more than 9 people dead.

And now the blame begins. Without somebody taking full responsibility, we are left to point fingers everywhere. For example, how did the FDA miss such egregious violations? According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, it might be because 60 inspectors are responsible for over 16,000 facilities. Of course the FDA will blame the state of Georgia. And besides the public illness and deaths, this will cost millions of dollars before it’s over. All, perhaps, because one leader stood for income over integrity.

Tags: leadership integrity, Salmonella Scare, Stewart Parnell, United Peanut Corp

03 Jan 09 Legal versus Leadership

So, our friend Rod Blagojevich argues that he will continue to be the governor of Illinois because, although the wiretaps catch him saying some pretty disturbing things, he did not behave in any way that is illegal. Because it is not illegal to muse with somebody over the telephone, he argues he can and should continue to be the leader of the government of Illinois.

Here’s the thing. While what he said may or may not be illegal (conspiracy laws are complicated, but possibly relevant), he did betray his own values and personal megalomania. It doesn’t actually MATTER whether or not he broke the law. He very clearly in those tapes revealed a core that is unfit for leadership. This should be the basis of the impeachment. The rest can be settled in a court of law.

Leadership is not about legality. It’s about values, trust and the ability to inspire followers. Sorry Blago. You’re guilty on this one already.

Tags: Blagojevich, leadership integrity, trust