‘…plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…’

Much has been written to try to define the differences between generations in the workforce.  Specifically, commentators look to make value distinctions.   Baby boomers want this; Gen X wants that; Millenials yet again something different.  The suggestion is that each successive generation is looking for something unique in their experience and thus the need for different leadership/management styles in order to maximize productivity and job satisfaction.

I beg to differ. 

As a Baby Boomer, I wanted to have essentially the same things I hear Millenials seeking.  Millenials want to be recognized for their work; they want their ideas to be thoughtfully considered; they want to make the world a better place for everyone.  As they look for employment, sense of purpose, professional development, mentoring and aligned values are all top of mind criteria.

Frankly, these are all Apple Pie aspirations.  Except for the most cynical amongst us, most people of any generation hold these views.  They are shared human desires.  Who does not want recognition for work well done…who does not want to have their ideas and input seriously considered…don`t we all instinctively want to leave the world better than the place we entered.

I submit that what have really changed are the attitudes and capabilities of those in positions of authority and responsibility.  While there is much yet that needs to be done in terms of professionalism, transparency, gender equality and integrity, the fact of the matter is that the needle has moved significantly over the past century.  Workplaces are now far more inclusive and responsive.  Managers and leaders are better educated, better trained and better supported than ever before.  This breeds self-confidence and thus the ability to consider others’ opinions without feeling attacked or threatened.

To be certain, communication techniques have changed and younger generations must be motivated in ways which are meaningful to them.  But really, hasn’t that always been the case.  The ‘next’ generation always feels that they have been blessed with insight and wisdom that is lacking in their superiors.

To them let me simply quote from that sage of yesteryear, Mark Twain.

“…When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years…”

Your leadership style and messaging techniques may be different - must be different - depending upon your audience.  But again, that has always been the case as no two individuals respond similarly regardless of their generation.  What is most important though is that you stay 'on message' because the team must be unified in their understanding of both the purpose and the process.  Make that your priority and generations become much less meaningful.

A noun or an adjective

Recently I had the misfortune of dealing with the customer service department of my telco, TV , cellular and internet provider.  My costs had gone up unexpectedly and my inquiries led to the fact that loyalty credits that I had been receiving had been canceled.  Customer service could only advise me what had happened, they could not reverse it and so I was transferred to the loyalty department.  My complaint was dealt with by an employee with 20 years experience who told me that I simply did not understand their need to make a profit.  He transferred me to customer retention. That is the group that grovels, apologizes and promises while throwing cash at the issue in an attempt to reconcile. By way of contrast, carpets are dropped off at our store every two weeks.  The delivery rep is pleasant, he arrives on time and he smiles as rolls up the dirty mats then spreads the new ones. He thanks us each time he is in. My telco provider bills me $3600 a year.  The mats cost under $500.  The telco looks at the customer as an adjective.  The mat company views me as a noun.  Do you see the difference? The telco is all about segmenting their service responsibilities.  We are treated as if we are something that is broken and needs repair.  Calls are directed to repair/support - home phone, internet, mobility, television, customer. So 'customer' is simply the adjective that describes the nature of service that needs to be addressed. The mat company recognizes that they exist to serve the customer.  Delivering clean mats is not 'customer service'.  Rather it is serving the customer.  We are of object of their affection. This is not just a matter of semantics.  It is all about how you view your client base.  How often have you heard the refrain '...this business would be a lot easier if we did not have all these customers to serve...' As the leader you must instill a sincere sense of urgency with regards to how to treat your customer base.  If your clients are adjectives you are providing customer disservice.  Your client's satisfaction must be the object of all you do and that priority must begin at the top of the house.  If you are disconnected from the client, regardless of how large your customer base is,  that is the message your employees will communicate.   When you treat your clients as adjectives, your employees with throw the company under the bus whenever any dissatisfaction is expressed.  And why not?  They are simply reflecting the values you have established.  When customers are the primary focus then fewer issues arise because you will have anticipated and prevented them from occurring. As in most aspects of leadership, it is a matter of choice.  Is your customer a priority, the object of your affection.  Or are they a nuisance that, like a squeaky wheel, needs to be serviced from time to time. .

Start in the Corners

As many companies approach their fiscal mid-year it is not uncommon to pause and evaluate how they are doing against their objectives.  They determine whether or not changes need to be made to the strategies that they implemented some months ago.  The companies that do this best are the ones that start in the corners.  Let me explain.

Some years ago I spoke with an executive consultant who had broad experience in the Far East.  He said that manufacturing in some countries was more difficult than others because of cultural practices. This is the example he described.

In country A, when it came time to clean the house the process started in the middle of the room.  Diligently, the dust and dirt was neatly swept into the corners where it was out of sight. 

In country B the process was in the reverse.  Cleaning started in the corners and the dirt was swept to the middle of the room.  From there the dust pan removed it outdoors.

To the unseen eye, both rooms were clean.  It was only when the windows or doors were opened and the wind blew in that the difference was noticeable…the consequences clear.

If your plans are not working out as anticipated, don’t look at the issues in the middle of the room.  More often than not, they are only symptoms of the problems. Instead, look behind the curtains and in the corners of your room to find the fundamental flaws in your plan.  Bring that which is unseen out and into the open for critical review. 

It may prove difficult, even embarrassing, to acknowledge that you did not start with a `clean` slate that was capable of supporting your ambitions.  But until you address these underlying issues, nothing that you try to do will have a reasonable chance of success.

Do you have the strength of character as the leader to admit your error and clean the room properly?  Or will you continue to push the dirt to the corners, out of sight, until revealed by the breeze which inevitably blows through.

The Three C's of Hiring

One of the most important tasks that you are called upon to complete in your leadership role is that of  building at team.  At the end of the day, it is not about you accomplishing objectives but rather your team fulfilling their respective responsibilities that all contribute to the results of the whole.  So selecting the right team members is of critical importance.

Broadly speaking, there are three key components to the process.

1.  Competence.   

Begin by fully describing the duties of the position that you seek to fill.  Then determine the skill set that you believe is required to meet your expectations.  These become the minimum requirements that you will consider.  It is important that you define these issues clearly and completely as you will likely be presented with candidates with similar but different skill sets and you may be tempted to accommodate their abilities.  The interview process is an emotional one for both the candidate and the employer.  Because you have established your criteria during an unemotional time and have done so with proper reflection and input from others, these must remain your benchmark. Therefore be confidant that your needs are properly expressed and look for skill sets that meet your minimum requirements.

2.  Chemistry

Teams succeed because everyone has a role through which they contribute.  Recognizing this, you must find candidates whose skill sets not only fulfill your requirements but which also complement the skills of other team members.  This should be an outcome of defining your expectations.

Chemistry is a broad term to remind you that skills, personalities and as well as other factors need to be part of your decision.  If your company highly values moral and ethical behavior, why would you introduce someone whose character is not consistent with these values.  Likewise, if your approach is to build and maintain long term relationships with your client base, you really don't want or need someone who is a hit-and-run specialist.

When you try to incorporate an individual into the wrong culture, you are headed for disaster.  Some organizations are large enough to tolerate a bit of a misfit.  But as a rule, square pegs in round holes do not work.

3.  Compromise

Nothing good ever happens when you compromise in the hiring process.  Placing a body simply for the sake of filling a position is far worse than leaving it open for a longer period of time. But this happens when we let emotions get in the way  and we react to pressure rather than holding to the principles that we have built.   If you have been unable to find the right person to fill the role, don`t hire the person who, by default, is the least of the evils.  Instead, return to the criteria that you first established and determine if these needs are still properly expressed.  If that is the case, hold on to your goal.  The consequences are far more than appear on the face of it.  For example:

• A compromise means that you have hired less than you require.  You are now faced with the wasted costs of recruiting and training; you have delayed hiring the right person; and you face the termination expense once you accept reality.  
• A compromise opens the door for questions both internally and externally.  Clients are likely to ask `what were you thinking`while employees question your ability to make sound judgments.  Your standards are only as high as the lowest that you will accept.
• The wrong chemistry can make the whole workplace a toxic place.  Can you really afford the impact of lost productivity from the existing workforce whose efforts are disrupted by the lack of chemistry.

It is not always easy to find the right person to fill a gap in your organization.  But good companies attract - and retain - good employees.  Likewise, those who are willing to compromise the hiring process for the sake of expediency will also get what is coming to them.  

It is your choice.  Is it really that hard of a decision...

5% Too many

How would you react if you knew that the airline you chose sported a safe landing percentage of 96%?  Before you answer let me remind you that there are about 100,000 flights per day worldwide.

Or how would you feel if your doctor's diagnosis was accurate 96 times out of 100?  You would likely not book Monday morning or Friday afternoon appointments...

If the bridge you were about to cross had a sign that said "...the engineer for this bridge graduated in the 85th percentile..." you might be tempted to look at the car behind you and say '...after you, please...'

Our desire is that performance in these fields is 100%.  But recognizing that these are all skills based situations, we know that perfection is simply not attainable.  Best effort is what we hope for, along with a little luck.

But how do our expectations change when it is a matter of character and not competency?  Don't we rightly expect more?

What, then,  are we to make of the results of a recent Ernst & Young survey that indicated that 95% of Canadian CEO's and CFO's responded that they would adhere to behavior that was legally, morally and ethically responsible.  This includes properly reporting revenue and expenses; not engaging in brides or other types of corruption; and not turning a blind eye to activities like child labor. (Apparently Canada scored very high in this survey.)

Wow, one out of twenty confesses that they would cheat in order to gain an advantage or to make performance look better than it is.  It strikes me that the number may be low because these are people admitting, in an anonymous survey, to a willingness to cheat.  How many others had their fingers crossed as they answered the question...

The reality is that there is NO ROOM for a failure of ethics in the Boardroom.  There cannot be ethics  that you exercise based on circumstances or the behavior of a competitor or the need/desire to secure a contract.  And yet 1 in 20 thinks it is OK.

Don't take the sting out of that by asserting some greater good can come out of it; that the order keeps many employed or that others were offering bribes too. Once Pandora's Box has been opened, literally all hell has broken loose.

In some jurisdictions it is considered acceptable to turn a blind eye; to grease the palm; to endorse corruption,  But none of that makes it RIGHT.

As leaders, we have an individual and a collective responsibility to always do that which is legally, morally and ethically correct.  'Situational ethics' cannot find a safe harbour in our behavior because 'situational ethics' is the same as no ethics.

Five percent of Canadian boardrooms apparently think otherwise.  Let's expose them for what they are...CHEATERS.  

Hold your nose!

I am an unapologetic capitalist.  Capitalism in a democracy works, in a perfect world.  And short of a benevolent dictator, it is likely the best we can expect. To that end I subscribe to wealth creation as a viable motivator.

I have no opposition to inventive, creative, risky and unique initiatives.  To be certain, these are the types of activities that propel us...usually forward but sometimes not.  I applaud those who are willing to fail in the attempts to succeed.

What I despise are those who use other peoples capital - be it financial, emotional or time -in vainglorious efforts because these people care not about the consequences.  And there are always consequences.  Sadly, the net seldom catches all the innocents who fall while perpetrators somehow push the eject button and parachute to safety before the crash.

Just this week Goldman Sacks agreed to a penalty in excess of  $5 billion US for trading activities in the period of 2005-2007.  Further costs will increase their payout to over $6 billion.  In so doing they join a celebrated list of offenders that include J.P. Morgan Chase ($13 billion); Bank of America ($16 billion); Citibank ($7 billion) and Morgan Stanley ($3.2 billion).  Their collective activities provided significant fuel for the fire that continues to smolder in the world economy.

Yet despite these record payouts, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE and none face any prosecution.  None have repaid obscene bonuses earned from these despicable actions. They all pushed the eject button in time.

As a partial consequence, for almost a decade we have been mired in a period of global  economic stagnation. Politicians, bureaucrats and economists have not been able to find the formula to remedy matters.  And now we have the Panama Papers which outline the economy of the super-rich and offer insights to their tax avoidance activities.  Some estimates suggest that the amount of money hidden away in these 'off-shore' tax havens may reach as high as $37 trillion.  That is an unfathomable amount.  Here it is expressed in numerical fashion.

$37,000,000,000,000.00 

Even if this figure is high by some multiple (it could just as easily be low because the law firm exposed by the papers is only the fourth largest provider of these tax havens), it is an obscene amount. For purposes of context consider that the global Gross Domestic Product is estimated to be about $75 trillion.  So the money hidden may represent half of global GDP.

Keep in mind two important facts about this amount.  The first is that this is the amount that is HIDDEN.  It does not include the amounts that the account holders publicly declare. These are individuals whose wealth exceeds the requirements of any person over several lifetimes. Regardless, they are fully capable of paying taxes without impinging on their ability to maintain their lifestyles. The other account holders are crooks.

Secondly, these funds are not working towards global economic activity, apart from the lawyers and bankers who administrate these funds.  Were it otherwise we would see their contributions and they would be more likely subject to proper tax consideration. The reality is that these funds are in excess of the needs of the account holders and thus can afford to sit in relative dormancy.

It is impossible to determine what impact the tax on these funds would have on health, education or infrastructure spending.  Suffice to say that it would be significant...

My takeaway from these two issues?

Our problem is not one of wealth creation so much as it is a problem of wealth distribution.  For every public figure like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet who are openly declaring their wealth and treating it as a public asset, there are tens or hundreds of thousands who refuse to acknowledge their responsibility to return to society that which is due.

In some perverted way they feel entitled to the funds in their possession while ignoring the fact that their wealth has simply been the accumulated transfer of the 'wealth' from millions - perhaps billions - of every day citizens. We are those who have transferred money from our pockets to the pockets of these super rich simply through the purchase of some every day staple of life, be it bread, rice, fuel or some other necessity that flows upward to those who own the conglomerates.

Trickle down economics is just a fantasy.  The super rich do not spend more because they have more. They simply accumulate  more. The truth is that economies grow when the least of us is able to make purchases because these funds naturally flow upward.

Consider, when a car company invests in a new plant that creates 1000 new jobs, economists suggest that the actual impact is the creation of an additional 5000-6000 jobs.  There is a 'multiplier' effect due to all the other products and services that are needed to support the new plant.

What then if only half of that $37 trillion was repatriated in the form of tax and used to assist the least of those in society; we would be injecting as much as 20%  more into the global GDP.   The multiplier effect would drive that impact in a staggering way.  And the primary beneficiaries would be the super wealthy because they already own the majority positions in the companies which grow or manufacture the goods that will be purchased.

We have enough wealth, just as we have enough food and water,  It is a matter of fairness and distribution.

Our leadership at both a political level and at a corporate level continue to fail us.  They have led us into recession because of greed, plain and simple.  Truthfully it is an oxymoron to call them leaders.  In reality they are self-serving bullies...in expensive suits.

And here is the real catch-22.  Other CEO's should be publicly condemning the actions of these Wall Street cheaters.  But to do so means disrupting the 'old boys club', potentially making it more difficult to access funds when they are needed for mergers, acquisitions or other purposes.

Politicians are wary to upset the off-shore apple cart because these account holders are also the largest contributors to their election campaigns.  Remember too that it was the politicians who established the governance that allows these tax avoidance schemes to exist in the first place and revelations suggest that many of them are profiting from the schemes themselves.

As an authentic leader it is not enough to be ``legal``.  You must also pass the ethical and moral smell test.

And these all stink!

Are you missing the Ms?

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Mary T. Barra, General Motors Co. (GM), Heather Bresch, Mylan Inc.,Ursula M. Burns, Xerox Corp.
• Debra A. Cafaro, Ventas Inc.;Susan M. Cameron, Reynolds American Inc.;Safra A. Catz, Oracle Corp. (co-CEO);Lynn J. Good, Duke Energy Corp..Marillyn A. Hewson, Lockheed Martin Corp.
• Lauralee E. Martin, HCP Inc.;Gracia C. Martore, TEGNA; 'Marissa Mayer, Yahoo Inc.
• Beth E. Mooney, KeyCorp; Denise M. Morrison, Campbell Soup Co.;Indra K. Nooyi,, PepsiCo, Inc.
• Phebe N. Novakovic, General Dynamics Corp.;Debra L. Reed, Sempra Energy Corp.
• Barbara Rentler, Ross Stores Inc.;Virginia M. Rometty, International Business Machines (IBM) Corp. 
• Irene B. Rosenfeld, Mondelez International Inc.;Meg Whitman, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise

Do you recognize any of these Company names?  They are all members of the Fortune 500 and all have female CEO's.   In Canada, we have equally talented female CEO's:Heather Reisman at Chapters-Indigo; Linda Hazenfratz at Linamar; Karen Sheriff at BellAliant among many others.

Can you then explain to me again why you don't think that women are fit for executive positions?  Or for any position of responsibility in your business...

The fact of the matter is this.  There is no level of responsibility that cannot be done equally as well by a woman as by a man.  And with the greater emphasis being placed on emotional intelligence today, it is clear that women should have an advantage over men when being considered for positions of leadership.

None of this should come as a surprise.   By 2017, more graduating doctors will be women.  The same is true for lawyers.  Over 40% of MBA graduates at the leading schools are women.  Interestingly, women are graduating more MBA's in the influential categories of marketing, communications, accounting and management; the fields that more typically stream to executive roles.

Overall performance on gender equality in the boardroom is an international embarrassment.  We can blame the old boys network for that.  However there is no excuse to perpetuate the myth.  Not only is it demeaning and degrading to over half the population, it just makes bad - no, horrible - business sense to deny yourself access to over half of the eligible candidates for important roles in your company.

Ignore the truth at your peril.  As in every circumstance, the best will be chosen early.