The Contradiction of Sacrifice

 

 

During my career I often heard of and saw others who had made a personal sacrifice for their company.  Most times this related to things like extensive travel; late or early hours (or both); weekends and holidays consumed with things of work.  Their feeling was that this level of sacrificial dedication was a good way of being considered for promotion or deserving of some recognition…particularly financial. 

A standard dictionary definition of sacrifice in this context put it this way.

 “…the surrender of something for the sake of something else…”

Expressed in this manner there is a certain magnanimous aspect to the individual’s efforts.   But that would be the wrong interpretation!

The fact of the matter is that the individual has not sacrificed anything.  Rather, they have made a conscious and self- serving decision.  Use whatever other rationale that may suit you, but the true sacrifice is made not by the individual but by those impacted by their decision.

Whether it is family or friends who lose the opportunity of relationship with the individual, these are those who are truly sacrificing something. 

When someone CHOOSES to throw themselves into their work to the extent that it causes disconnect with those who should otherwise expect this person’s time and attention, then this person has not sacrificed anything.  They are pursuing exactly that which they have chosen.

As a leader, are you justifying time away as a sacrifice you are making?  I submit that you are deluding yourself.  Clearly there are times when work appropriately demands more of you than is otherwise reasonable.  But when that demand is chronic, your choices are a bigger part of the problem.

Don’t pretend that the company is at fault.  Sacrifice only pertains to the relationship between individuals.  A company has no personality and therefore can neither demand nor recognize a sacrifice.

Leaders model behaviour for others.  In a perfect world it should be very much a ‘do as I do’ example.  How do you measure up?  Are you encouraging the sacrificial work ethics of others or are you - by word and by deed – demonstrating balance.

Here’s a quick example of sacrifice.  A former employee was in the middle of a successful career when they approached me to say that they were going to resign.  They felt an urgency to help others and were committing to an NGO for six months of volunteer work in a needy country.  Resignation seemed the only option.

Instead we worked out a leave of absence.  I wanted this individual to both realize the desires of their heart while affording them the opportunity to resume their career. I knew I could not replace and train someone in that period of time, but more importantly I commended their humanity and personal sacrifice. Their example continues to inspire me.

Your personal welfare and the welfare of your team members supersede the welfare of the company.  Be the leader that demonstrates that reality.

Thing Leaders Don't Do

 

Things leaders don’t do!

 

Great leaders:

1.    Don’t settle; they exceed.

2.    Don’t talk as much as they listen.

3.    Don’t hoard; they share.

4.    Don’t belittle; they praise.

5.    Don’t build walls; they open doors.

Outstanding leaders:

1.    Don’t hope for dreams to come true; they make them come true.

2.    Don’t require allegiance; they build loyalty.

3.    Don’t demand respect; they earn it.

4.    Don’t react; they anticipate.

5.    Don’t criticize; they teach.

 

Precious few leaders:

1.    Don’t build legacies; they build leaders.

2.    Don’t hang on; they know when it’s time to leave.

3.    Don’t need recognition; they acknowledge the contributions of others.

4.    Don’t fear diversity; they seek it.

5.    Don’t define themselves by title; but by results.

Perspectives on Leadership

 

I am a baby boomer. My grandfather was born in 1880 at a time when there were no cars, no planes, no computers…hell, the telephone was just invented.  How much leadership expertise do you think he had?  And how different was he from the majority of the population?

Seventy years later my father entered the workforce.  He had just spent the prior 20 years surviving the depression and World War II.  He was a rarity in that he had a university education.  The total student body of his university was captured in one panoramic photograph.  How much leadership expertise do you suspect he brought to his early roles; where could he go for wisdom? Like his peers, he adopted the only style he knew…survival of the fittest and commander in chief, tainted by PTSD. 

It was the best that they could offer.  For boomers entering the workforce in the 70’s and 80’s, these were their mentors.  Is it any wonder that so many of the greatest demographic generation failed to live up to the expectations?

Their leadership style was modified to embrace a motto of entitlement.  He who has the most toys wins.  Wall Street insisted that ‘greed is good’.  The Vice Chairman at Goldman Sachs was quoted as saying ‘…we have to accept that inequality is a way of achieving greater opportunity and prosperity for all…’  The message was different but the underlying style remained the same.

We are now firmly in the grasp of the 21^st century. This historic style does not work and will not serve us in the coming decades. But decisions still must be made and leadership must be exhibited.  In my experience, consensus decision making is simply a recipe for inaction.  But the authoritarian method is a recipe for abuse.  What’s the answer?

First, some realities.

1.    Individuals are much better educated and experienced and therefore much better prepared to lead.

2.    Most employees are also much better educated and capable of making informed contributions.

3.    There are fewer levels of management thereby allowing for closer communication top to bottom.

4.    Diversity has created a deeper pool of candidates with the skills needed to lead successfully.

5.    The complexity of business means that no one has all the answers.

An effective leader is one who:

1.     Is willing to be held to the highest levels of moral, ethical and legal conduct.

2.    Understands that leadership is a privilege and not a right.

3.    Seeks input from various sources, internal and external, in developing decisions.

4.    Acknowledges the contributions of others and reinforces that success comes from the team, not the individual.

5.    Accepts not only the responsibility and authority of the position but also the accountability.

It’s a big ‘ask’. The challenges we face are more daunting than ever and one size does not fit all.  We are beyond the time of excuses and procrastination until ineffective leaders are replaced by those who can deliver. We need more, now!

We already know the answer

 

 

Rod Stewart sang “…I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger…”  Don’t we all sort of wish that too?  How different would our choices…our decisions…our actions have been if we were blessed with that insight?

That line comes to mind right now as we all look on as peeping Toms at the catastrophe unfolding in Ukraine.  SPOILER ALERT.  WE KNOW F—KING WELL, RIGHT NOW, WHAT THE END WILL BE.

Russia will kill thousands of civilians, perhaps hundreds of thousands.  They will level every building in all the major cities of Ukraine.  They will impose their will on the nation.

That is not to say that it will be easy or that the Ukrainian people will not resist with every fibre of their being.  But the end is a known.

Sanctions, weapons and moral solidarity against this invasion help us to feel good.  But that won’t ever be enough.  And we know that too.

So what happens when the next step it taken?  What happens when a NATO partner is under attack? 

The west is committed to respond and defend against such an action.  Will another event actually happen?  WE KNOW IT WILL!

While we sit and break our arms patting ourselves on the back at how much we have done to support Ukraine, let’s pause to consider WHAT WE HAVE NOT DONE.

The US has delayed sanctions on the Russian oil and gas industry.  Why?  Because it might raise prices at the pumps by a dollar a gallon.  WOW, WHAT AN F—KING SACRIFICE.

Nobody in the west wants to feel the hurt personally.  It’s better that the Ukrainians do it on our behalf. 

NATO must act now in a decisive manner.  These actions will alleviate the inevitable suffering of the Ukrainians and of the Russian people as well.  It also means that our action now diminishes the inevitable consequences of our collective inaction.

Words, prayers, sanctions and diplomacy are all nice in a world in which the rule of law dictates.  That world does not exist in Putin’s mind.

Tell our leaders ‘…I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger…’

Leadership 101

For over a decade I have commented that the most important quality in a leader is their character.  This overrides any outstanding virtue associated with competencies.  And while it is obviously best to have a strong mixture of both, the absence of character is far more devastating to success than an absence of competence.

This week we are seeing that played out in real time in the conflict raging in Ukraine.

President Zelenski entered office in 2019 with no prior experience on the political stage.  Apart from playing the role of President in a Ukrainian TV comedy, his background is devoid of any political experience.

In contrast, Russia’s Putin has been on the political stage for almost 30 years.  He served in municipal roles prior to ascending to the big stage almost 20 years ago.  During this time he has honed his political skills.  But he has sacrificed any notion of character in a single minded pursuit of power.

In the David versus Goliath conflict that we are witnesses to, the Ukrainian citizens have rallied behind a leader who declared ‘…give me weapons, not an escape plan…’ His courage and faith in the resolve of his people is inspiring support around the world.  How long it will last remains uncertain but his legacy is being built every hour.

In Russia, thousands are facing arrest and imprisonment by demonstrating against Putin.  Members of his own cabinet are opposed to his actions and the world’s condemnation is coming from all corners.  His legacy is being torn down minute by minute.

It has been said that everything works out in the end.  If it has not yet worked out, then it is not the end.  CHARACTER WILL ALWAYS WIN IN THE END. Let us celebrate in advance the victory that will come…when the end has been written.

Rights and Freedoms

 

As demonstrations across Canada continue against the imposition of mandates-federal and provincial-in relation to efforts to control the spread of the Covid 19 virus, a minority of the population have come to the conclusion that their rights and freedoms have been usurped. 

This is not correct.

The opening paragraph of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

          “...The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society….”

The pandemic is a crisis unlike any we have seen in a century.  In Canada, millions have been infected; tens of thousands have died; and untold numbers have or will experience long lasting complications from their experience with the virus. 

It has been the responsibility of our elected officials at all levels of government to enact measures that, in their collective wisdom, provide the greatest protection for ALL.  Some may disagree with the decisions that have been taken, but many, many more would be upset had the government not taken steps to curb the impact on society from the consequences of inaction.

Regardless of which side of the coin you find yourself, we all must remember this.  Rights and freedoms come with a concurrent task; that is responsible behaviour. In a democratic society, our freedoms call us exercise those rights and freedoms without impeding the rights and freedoms of others. Demonstrate if you will, but in a manner which befits the privileges that you have and that you would want another to extend to you.

To those who disagree, speak loudly…with your vote. 

Corporate North Americas Shame

 

In the year 2000 all but 2 of the Fortune 500 companies were headed by men.  Fast forward to 2021 and that number is now 41. We are only 209 short of parity!

At this rate, growth of about 2 per year, the Fortune 500 should reach gender equality by the year 2125…just a mere 105 years from now.

Sorry but I don’t have time for this nonsense to continue.  It’s not as if men have some superior ability to manoeuver companies through difficult times.  Hell, they often fail during good times.

Steve Easterbrook of McDonald’s was fired because of personal, not professional incompetence.  He was caught showing off his Big Mac to too many women in the company.

Dennis Muilenburg of Boeing decided it was more important to sell airplanes than to be certain that they could fly.

The CEO of a company named ‘Better’ fired 900 employees in early December on a Zoom call. Mr. Garg is now taking time off as the company ‘…performs a leadership and cultural assessment…’  They might want to consider a new name as well!

A PWC study (released in 2018) of 2500 companies around the world showed that the average tenure of a CEO was about 5 years.  That suggests that even if the rate of the Fortune 500 was double that average, there should be 50 positions becoming available every year. 

Why women are not placed in at least half of these suggests three things.

1.     Companies are doing an insufficient and ineffective mentoring process to identify and groom women in their succession planning processes.

2.     Boards of Directors are not moving away fast enough from the ‘old boy’s network’ for filling top positions. These Boards need to be replaced themselves.

3.     Search firms are not fulfilling their responsibilities by seeking out and recommending qualified women for these roles.  To rephrase a statement by G. K. Chesterton ‘…it’s not that female leadership has been tried and found wanting; rather, it has been perceived as threatening and therefore left untried…’  Search firms must become leaders and not followers in these matters or risk becoming as irrelevant as the Boards they purport to serve.

Institutional investors must likewise demand more diversity, for women and other visible minorities.  Activist firms have long demanded changes at the senior level when it suits their purposes.  There is simply no longer any valid excuse for making experience at a urinal a prerequisite for the corner office. 

My fear is that without a serious and concerted effort to demand changes, even the so called gains of the past 20 years will begin to erode.  There is clearly a movement against women’s and minority rights in the US.  Whether it is related to abortion or voting rights, historical rights are being overturned.  This cannot bode well for the expectation of fair treatment in Corporate America as companies fall in line with the rhetoric against these under-represented groups.

All companies in the Fortune 500 should have an equal number of male and female candidates in their succession plan.  I would also urge smaller companies to make similar efforts as effective leadership is becoming an increasingly critical component of future success. 

Denying yourself the consideration of and access to over half the population is about as intelligent as trying to catch a falling knife.  It only results in self-inflicted wounds.