Is your environment safe?

I recognize that there are many ways to interpret this question. 

You may ask if one is personally safe from physical or emotional harassment. 

Is one safe from all of the multiple forms of discrimination?

Perhaps it centers on the question job security; is your company and/or your role in it going to be viable in a year or a decade from now?

Is it safe for you to express opinions and suggestions without fear of retribution?

All of these are reasonable questions to ask of any employment situation, regardless of the position you hold. 

How does one come to that sense of peace that calms these fears and which then allows you to maximize your personal potential and job satisfaction?

I submit that it is your role as a leader to ensure the ‘safety’ of your team members and, by extension, other members of your company.    You do this not by your competencies but by the compass of your character, and specifically by your moral and ethical conduct.

It is this compass that provides alignment throughout a team or across a company.  This compass dictates the values and principles by which business will be conducted.  It confirms what is and is not acceptable.  It establishes the guidelines and boundaries; it sets the examples of conduct; it says by word and by deed ‘…I care and I WILL defend and protect you…’

Ethics and morals are not situational; they are not elastic; they are not conditional.  Every leader must be clear and consistent in their definition and application of the code of conduct that applies to all. 

The absence of clarity and consistency is chaos.  When anyone is able to assert a personal standard or definition, then the ugliness of chaos is given license.

However, when clarity is confirmed by conduct and consistency, every employee can have a legitimate expectation for their workplace.  This is true for a department, for a company or even for a nation. All people need to know and believe in the high principles established by leadership.

It is then and only then, that they can feel SAFE!

Set a standard; publish that standard; live that standard.  Lead with clarity and consistency of purpose…for this is your most important duty.

Let's talk Loyalty.

Many leaders feel that loyalty is a given.  Anyone on their team must adhere to the policies and principles that are set out by the leader.  To run contrary to these values is to be dis-loyal and the ‘offender’ is subject to discipline up to and including dismissal.

In many instances, I concur with this generalization.  One should know and agree with the culture of the company before accepting employment.  To state afterwards that you do not agree with aspects of the culture is not a valid complaint.

What many leaders fail to recognize is that loyalty is a two way street. 

As the leader, the culture that you establish significantly influences the reason that individuals are attracted to work for you and to continue to work for you.  It is on the basis of this culture which aligns with the individual’s personal beliefs that relationships are established and maintained.

This cultural alignment also extends externally to your clients and your suppliers.  It is not unreasonable to say that these are relationships based on loyalty to you and, by extension, to your company.  As a provider of goods or services, your loyal clients have built trust in your recommendations and look to you almost as a partner in their business. 

As much as loyalty serves your interests - whether that is the internal loyalty of staff or the external loyalty of others - it is important to recognize that the loyalty is built on a two way street.  You must remain loyal to the culture which attracted both in the first place.  It is a relationship built first and foremost on that which you offer them, not vice versa.  Their trust, their commitment, their loyalty is built on the foundation of trust and commitment and loyalty that you present and maintain.

In most instances these people, internal and external, will remain loyal unless and until your position changes, i.e. until you cease to be loyal to that which you first represented.  When you make a material movement away from that foundation, you have ceased to be loyal to the vision; you have broken the bonds that formed the relationship.  Therefore, when others respond by pulling away or disconnecting entirely, the fault lies with you, not them.  

Your behavior was the catalyst of change and their response is not one of disloyalty.  Rather it is a normal and healthy response that affords them the time to analyze whether or not the changes that you initiated constitute enough of a violation as to prompt their changed loyalty.

Loyalty is not synonym for allegiance.  The two are quite different.  Loyalty is a choice and is two way.  Allegiance is a command and goes only one way.  The problem arises when the leader asks for loyalty but expects allegiance.  This prompts unrealistic expectations on both sides of the relationship.  It is only a matter of time before the disconnect results in a complete breakdown and disintegration of the union of the parties.

You are the leader.  You set the tone; you set the culture; you control the work environment; you establish and maintain the parameters under which the business or the unit will function.  Continually check to ensure that the standards that you presented are kept – or improved.  In so doing you will have done your part in holding true to the part of the loyalty equation which is your responsibility.  And you should reasonably expect others to do likewise.  It is this partnership that makes your efforts a success.

Conspicuous Consumption

Many businesses across North America, and indeed around the world, are consumed by the financial imperatives of the next quarter.  They spend enormous amounts of time pouring over numbers and generating budgets and estimates and then breaking them down into bite sized units of quarters, months and sometimes even days. 

The organization becomes singularly focused on meeting or exceeding the next set of results that is anticipated by the ‘street’.  Protecting and growing shareholder value is the principal reason for every decision.  The bar is set higher and higher and the pressure to perform mounts with each passing financial report.

Once a target is met, it’s on to the next.  Like the dog chasing its own tail, the pursuit is endless.

I want to offer a contrarian opinion.

As the leader, you must be consumed by the process of achievement; you cannot be consumed by the achievement itself.  Let me explain.

Your role is to pour your passion; your integrity; your experience; your knowledge and your vision into the process of achievement.  It is only in the process that you have the opportunity to interact with your team and to build into each person the culture and values that keep your enterprise successful.  The achievement itself- the attainment of the goal – becomes the natural outcome of the work done in the process. 

It may seem that I am splitting hairs but I assure that I am not. You can and must separate the process from the result.

 Let me use this simple example.

Two writers are asked to write a mystery novel.  Writer #1 submits 20 chapters of increasingly complex detail and intrigue before finally revealing the mystery.

Writer #2 submits just one line … ‘the butler, in the parlour with a candlestick…’

Both arrived at the same place but which was the successful submission.

Being fully committed – being consumed – by your role is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.  Provided that you maintain a balance in your life, being consumed is much better than a half-hearted effort.  

But keep your focus on that which matters and the results will come.  If you are consumed only by the goal and not the process you will lose your joy that comes with the achieving on the way to the achievement.

A eulogy for the living.

From time to time I reflect on my career, its successes and failures, and I am reminded of all the people whose support, wisdom, counsel and example have helped to shape the type of person and leader that I became.  The truth of the matter is that regardless of our personality; regardless of our intellectual capabilities; regardless of our good fortune; regardless of our merit, none of us has come to the role that we currently hold without an abundance of influence from others.

Sometimes it was the example of a superior.  Other times it was the encouragement of a peer.  And at other times it was the efforts of our direct reports.  We can look back and see how every contact was important in some way and has sculpted us.  Even when that point of contact was difficult, learning to persevere and grow meant that the contact had purpose.

Viewed through this lens, those in leadership ought to have an expression of thanks and appreciation towards others…an attitude of gratitude!

To that end I encourage you to reach out and genuinely thank those who have made your journey more successful; your load lighter; and your experiences more pleasant.  Take the time to write a ‘eulogy for the living’ and express some thoughts that you might have been holding back. 

Consider what you would want to say at their funeral.  How this word or that example impacted your future behaviour.  How a kindness paid forward changed an attitude or opened your mind to new possibilities.

Expressing appreciation is good for both the giver and the recipient.  For the giver, it helps to keep you grounded and focused.  The recipient is strengthened through gratitude and encouraged to continue building into others.

I confess that I am preaching to myself and that I have not followed this advice as frequently as I have cause to do.  But know that I will take some time – not in a broadcast email – to address this oversight.

Leaders are the beneficiaries of others efforts, input and opinions.  Make sure that they know how much you appreciate the contributions that were made to your success.

United...the problem was not in Chicago!

Regardless of the scope of responsibility that you hold in your position of leadership, the culture of your company, your division, your team flows from your example. People naturally look to the leader to set the example and to define either in words or deeds – ideally both – the kind of culture that is acceptable and therefore expected.

So what are we to say about United Airlines and the recent incident in which a paying passenger was ‘escorted’ from the plane and ‘re-accommodated’? Most of you have seen the video.  

If not, check out this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrDWY6C1178

This was followed by a message from the CEO.  See http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/united-airlines-oscar-munoz

What were these people thinking?  How could a culture exist that suggested to ground staff that this was an acceptable response to an over booking problem created by United’s own systems.

My finger points to the top.  Airlines have consistently squeezed the paying public by charging for virtually every extra.  First it was baggage; then seat selection; then meals.  They re-worked planes to provide less legroom and thereby more seats. All of this points to a culture that says that the passenger is nothing more than a pigeon waiting to be plucked and when the last dollar has been shaken out of their pockets, 

maybe they will be allowed to fly.

Three important errors emanated from the top.

In his first response, the CEO takes no responsibility for the regrettable incident.  The fact of the matter is that the first response should have been his apology for allowing the culture in the company to deteriorate to the point where no employee came forward to say ‘STOP’ the madness.  The people were only parroting the same type of behaviour that the executive office had been communicating for years.  Why should we be surprised that the staff acted in lock step with the example that had been ingrained 

from the top?

Secondly he blamed the passenger and praised his staff.

No amount of apologies; no amount of money; no amount of discipline is going to undo the damage.  The videos and the internal responses are out in the internet for the ages.  The case is so obviously bad it does not even warrant a Harvard Business Review analysis. 

Finally, the CEO acted arrogantly by believing that he could contain the issue without professional assistance.  By the time that damage control experts were deployed it was too late.

How have your actions helped to define the type of culture that you want and expect in your sphere of responsibility?  Clearly United did not think through the consequences and now it is too late.  Have you neglected this critical component of your duties?  It is almost never too late to change.  And it starts with you!

If the culture is poor it falls on your shoulders.  Start by defining what it should be and then apologise for your failure to properly nurture and model that culture.

Next, make it a priority.  As seen in the United example, failure can cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars.  I cannot think of any situation in which the cost to implement a proper culture would run anywhere near this expense.

Finally, recognize that this cannot be a onetime event.  Culture is not an act; it is an ingrained behaviour and response.

I understand and appreciate that there is a bottom line focus driving most organizations.  But it cannot be achieved by throwing away millions by failing to practice proper business fundamentals.

Lessons from The Donald part ii

I am not an American and I did not vote in their recent election.  I have no party affiliations or preferences.  This blog is addressing issues of leadership.

As many of you know, I have blogged extensively on fundamental aspects of authentic leadership and how one must adhere to the highest moral, ethical and legal standards.  Character outweighs competence on my scorecard.

Using these criteria as my baseline, it is easy to see why Donald Trump has had difficulty getting his administration and his policies implemented.  Let’s review his scorecard on the four elements.

1.     Authenticity:  Trump was legally elected and has the full weight of the US constitution to validate his position.  That cannot be argued.  The problem that he faces is that he did not win the popular vote and there are reasonable grounds to question the amount that foreign (Russian) intervention influenced the outcome.  While these two elements do not disqualify his election, they do prompt some questions.  And if inquiries do tie his campaign to the foreign interference, then his authenticity is clearly in doubt.
2. Moral standards.  Trump’s own words show that he has abandoned any moral authority.  He has spoken out in a misogynous manner in the basest of terms; he has used a broad brush to paint Mexican immigrants as ‘bad hombres’; and he has castigated Muslims as threats to American security.  His comments are indiscriminate and offensive …and wrong.
3.   Ethical standards. Trump began to gain national attention some years ago by becoming the face of the ‘birther’ issue regarding the nationality of Barack Obama.  He unsubstantiated comments were questionable to begin with and proven false when Obama released his birth certificate.  But nothing has slowed Trump’s propensity to make other equally dubious allegations and yet he remains entirely unapologetic.  Consequently his own actions disqualify him from achieving the ethical standard of leadership.
4.  Legal standards.  Trump constantly uses social media to express opinions or to disseminate fake news.  The issue becomes a legal one when his comments cross over from being merely smoke screens and enter the realm of libel or outright lies.  I have already referenced the ‘birther’ matter but more recent claims that the former President authorized wire- tapping of Trump move the needle into the another more serious category.  And if his campaign is found to have been complicit with foreign interference of the US election, then all bets are off with respect to his legal authority.

I have no axe to grind with Trump.  Had Clinton been elected, at least some of these characteristics may have been called into question as well. 

The issue is that leadership - to be effective, productive, and sustainable – must meet at least the minimum standards of acceptable conduct in these key issues of character.  When it fails to do so, the individual cannot gain the traction they need to accomplish what they set out to do.  Effective leadership is defined by getting things done through others.  When the ‘others’ have reasonable cause to question the leadership standards in play, they naturally withhold their best efforts. 

If you are unable to reach the goals you have set out for your team, your first task is one of self-examination.  Have you committed to maintaining these aspects of character and are you meeting those commitments.  Don’t look at the performance of your team until you can honestly say that you are providing the leadership that is necessary.

It is early days for Trump.  If he can find the humility to apologize and work to regain some of the moral and ethical high ground, the next four years can make the world a better place.  His failure to do so may take us all into precarious times.

Darwin's Theory

Very few companies are revolutionary in their thinking.  Over the past century we can point to only a few that changed the course of history.  I look at the invention of flight; the invention of penicillin and the invention of the internet among these few.  

None of these was invented by a company. Rather they were the result of innovative thinking combined with trials and errors that often developed in a laboratory or a garage. 

Today’s best leaders are not so much revolutionary in their thinking as they are evolutionary.  They have the ability to see not only the value of an invention but also its’ broader application.  Here are some obvious examples.

Microsoft did not invent the personal computer.  They simply saw ways to integrate a host of different processes on a common platform.  Google and Facebook did not invent the internet.  They saw ways to use it in ways that made it functional for billions of people.  Apple recognized that a cell phone could do more than make a call or receive a text.

In their evolutionary thinking they also recognized that only the strong survive.  Microsoft vanquished IBM; Google has out done AOL and Yahoo.  Facebook overwhelmed My Space and Apple has become the world’s most valuable company.  In each case, the genius was not inventing the tool but in using it.  Evolution, not revolution!

What is the implication for you as a leader? 

You need to be focused on two primary objectives.  The first is to be constantly innovating and evolving.  The status quo is not good enough.  When the leaders of Nokia faced the press on May 6, 2016 during their final days the CEO said, through his tears ‘…we didn’t do anything wrong…’ Well they didn’t do the right things to innovate and change.

The second, and equally critical objective, is extreme execution.  You may have all the innovation in the world but if you fail to execute, you will not survive.

Every day you need to be assessing your company’s performance against these two metrics.  What are you doing and how are you doing?

Darwin had it right.  The strong survive and dominate because they adapt.  They find their place in the pecking order and learn how to dominate in that space. 

Will you dominate or become extinct?  Your commitment to leadership will make the difference!