Follow the Money!

 

\

According to reports from Bloomberg, women now directly control over 35% of all wealth.  They indirectly control much more than that. 

Why should that seem surprising given that women represent half of the population?

Because that wealth has been accumulated in just the past 100 years and against all odds.  Consider these facts.

1.    Women only received the right to vote in North America in 1917.

2.    Banks only allowed women the right to a personal credit card in 1974.

3.    Women have often been treated as second class members of society in all areas of politics, business, religion and relationships.  This has been accomplished by irrational and restrictive laws, by workplace discrimination, by deliberate or uninformed interpretation of scriptures, and by fear from threats of bodily harm or death by relationship partners.

So men, with the aid of all these advantages, and a head start of several thousand years, have seen women close the wealth gap in under 100 years.  That is not just remarkable.  It’s a mind blowing testament to female ingenuity, perseverance and ability.

Does your company reflect the realities of the contributions that female leaders can make?  It’s not just that it is the right thing to do…it’s the smart thing to do!

And here’s the real kicker.  If you haven’t or aren’t prepared to acknowledge these realities, it probably doesn’t matter.  Women have figured out how to get there despite you! 

It’s time to be part of the solution instead of continuing to be the problem…

In Power...or near power?

 

In Power…or near power?

 

Every leader has some element of power. That power is granted by their superior and consists of both responsibility and authority to accomplish a specific task or tasks.  Implicit with this ‘power’ is the accountability associated with both components.  By that I mean that the achievement of the task must be done within the bounds of the authority granted.  Working outside of these bounds implies that ‘the end justifies the means’ and this typically suggests that the conduct has been legally, ethically or morally dubious.

Because of this expectation, many leaders fail.  In fact, many leaders are either unable or unwilling to function under the burden of these guideposts.  Consequently they surround themselves with those who live to be ‘near power’ (‘np’ers’) while staying far away from actually being ‘in power’. 

Too often these ‘np’ers’ are there to support the leader’s aspirations by telling them exactly what they want to hear. They are as unable or unwilling to speak truth to power as the leader is unable or unwilling to hear it.

These dysfunctional situations can be seen in all areas of society – business, politics, sports, religion and government.  Generally it indicates that the leader is in over their head but they lack to strength of character to admit it or to ask for help. Instead they push on and go further and further down the rabbit hole of denial until the weight of incompetence finally crashes down around them.

An authentic leader expects and accepts that they will be held to account for their performance.  They are self-aware enough to evaluate their own competencies and to surround themselves with others who complement their abilities by filling the gaps in their skills and/or experiences. These ‘np’ers’ are competent and strong enough to speak to power.  In so doing, the leader is able to add to the capabilities of the entire team.

To lead most effectively you need to:

1.    Understand and accept that YOU will be held accountable for the proper completion of the tasks assigned to you.  This is not negotiable nor can it be delegated.

2.    Confidently and realistically evaluate your strengths and weaknesses.  Are your aspirations for power supported by the facts?

3.    Hire those with competencies that complement - not compliment – your character and abilities.

4.    Beware of those who seek to be more than ‘near power’. Some would rather attempt to implant their own ideas or strategies for personal gain. In so doing, they undermine rather than support.

5.    Routinely do a ‘health check’ of your team.  Life is dynamic and we often cling to that which we know, even after we sense that it is no longer in our best interests.  Summon the courage to choose to ‘excuse’ those who have ceased to positively contribute to your well-being.

Leading can be made easier by those with whom we choose to surround ourselves.  Making solid decisions about these people will make other decisions better and easier.

Houston, we have a problem!

	Questions regarding two income families.	Men	Women
1	Who does the majority of meal planning?		X
2	Who does the majority of child care/care planning?		X
3	Who does the majority of elder care/care planning?		X
4	Who is most likely to be paid less for doing the same work as others?		X
5	Who is most likely to be called upon to make career sacrifices for the family?		X
6	Who is more likely to have a higher level of education?		X
7	Who is under-represented in executive level positions?		X
8	Who is under-represented on boards of directors?		X
9	Who has demonstrated the greater level of empathy, a key characteristic of an effective leader in the 21st century?		X
10	Who thinks that they have all the answers and are the most effective leaders?	X

 

Do you delegate or abdicate?

 

It has long been understood that for a leader to assist a subordinate in their personal development, the leader must be willing to delegate certain tasks that are a normal part of their scope of responsibility.  The practice holds that the individual who is delegated this task will be enriched by learning to make decisions that are above their own scope of responsibility and thus become more confidant in their own skills and abilities.

For this development tactic to work there must be some mutually understood and accepted ‘rules’.  These include:

1.    The task being delegated must be clearly defined with specific expectations and timing.

2.    The leader must use the task as a training opportunity.  It must not be used as a set up for failure.

3.    The person being delegated the task must be given the tools to succeed including the authority to ensure the assistance of others as necessary.

4.    Leaders must always make themselves available for assistance.

5.    It must be clear to both parties that the responsibility and authority associated with the task are being delegated but that the ultimate accountability must remain with the leader.

As long as this process is followed, delegating to another is a powerful expression of confidence and a very useful tool in preparing someone for greater responsibilities.

Problems arise when delegating really becomes a form of abdicating.

Let’s be honest…not every leader is the sharpest tool in the box. And not every leader is comfortable with having staff members who are more capable than they are. 

Whether it is a defensive manoeuver - an attempt to cover up one’s own shortcomings – or an offensive measure to cripple a rising star, some leaders avoid their responsibilities by abdicating them, not delegating them, to someone else.

What’s the difference?

When a task is abdicated it is done without the protection of the ‘rules’ outlined above.  As a consequence, the subordinate is often handcuffed from the beginning and despite best efforts they may be unable to satisfactorily complete the assignment. This allows the leader to cast blame on another without ever revealing their motive.

Here’s an extreme example.  I started a new position with a new company.  On day one my new superior told me that I needed to fire a particular associate in the division, a former direct report of his. I was informed ‘… he’s no good …’

I had no way of making any judgement so I simply replied that I was delegating this task ‘back up’ to him or I be allowed time to make my own judgement and action.  As you’d expect, he backed off…his abdication attempt failed.

Leading means taking responsibility as well as taking action.  Lead with integrity and with clarity of purpose.  Give others the opportunity to grow through your thoughtful delegation. Those to whom you provide leadership as well as opportunity will support you and grow to become effective resources you can count on in times of need.

It's YOUR job.

 

 

I have seen and read a number of opinions regarding team building.

Some remind us that “…there is no I in TEAM…”

Others insist that “…success is a team sport…”

Another popular opinion is that it’s better to have a person who is self-sacrificing and committed rather than one who is an A type personality.

To all of the above I have but one comment ‘…nonsense…’

What leader would hire a committed, self-sacrificing person of mediocre abilities?

What leader seeks individuals who do not want to perform their best, even if that means others cannot measure up to their level?

Why would anyone expect to participate with only marginal contributions to the overall success and not be judged poorly?

Team building is less about the individuals on the team and much more about the ability of the leader to do their job…to LEAD.

I fully acknowledge that it is difficult to find a group of all-stars.  Furthermore, even amongst that group, some will perform better than others.  But the role of the leader is to establish an environment in which each participant is able to maximize their potential.  Once you establish that someone can be on the team while falling short of their potential, a new and lower level of acceptable performance has been set.

If an Olympic team can improve by getting superior performers, the coach would be derelict in their duties if they did not seek out that better person.

Likewise, an F1 team needs the best drivers and mechanics it can find in order to win.  If the performance of any individual makes that success less likely, they should be replaced.

Yes I want commitment; yes I want team members to support their co-workers; yes I understand that ‘their best’ means different levels of accomplishment amongst the team members.

But let’s be honest.  You can find top performers who hold these qualities or you can develop them in individuals, if you lead competently.  It falls to you as the leader to knit together the skills and competencies of each individual on your team. The lack of cohesion in an elite group has much more to do with your leadership than it does with the team member’s qualities.

There are no participation medals in the workplace.

But there is an ‘I’ in failure. 

Don’t pedal these worn out phrases that excuse under performance.  Expect the best of all qualities from every team member and hold yourself accountable to creating the environment for that to happen.

It's a two way street.

 

As the leader, the culture that you establish significantly influences the reason that attracts and retains individuals 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 fair 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, 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 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. Your values of morality, ethics and legality must be set aside in deference to this person.  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.

Recession Realities

 

 

Many pundits are forecasting that we are heading into a recession.  Without commenting on the veracity of their claims, let me share a few facts.

1.    Since 1950, North America has experienced 11 recessions as defined by successive quarters of negative GDP. Therefore we experience one about every 6.5 years.  With that level of frequency you would think that business leaders ought to have some idea about how to respond.

2.    The average recession lasts about 11 months, but the median is closer to 8 months. Why then do these same leaders react like ‘chicken little’ and believe that the sky is falling in?

3.    If it does happen, this recession will be unique in that it will occur during a period in which both employment and interest rates are at or near historical lows.  Granted, inflation is higher than it has been in years but these same economists state that this is a short term blip and not a systemic situation.

Against this background, how should leaders prepare and respond?

1.    Do not…let me repeat; DO NOT…start laying off personnel.  In a market where staff shortages seem to be the norm rather than the exception, why would your first response be one of eliminating your most important asset?  You have invested heavily to recruit or retain, train and equip these assets and they should be the last, not the first casualty.

2.    Seriously examine your ability to sustain your business for 2-3 quarters of declining revenues of 5%.  If your bottom line is so fragile that this puts your company in a perilous situation, I suggest that your problems are much bigger than facing a recession.  Revenue-and profit-declines are not new to the business cycle and your plans should always have some room to respond without it being a crisis of survival.

3.    COVID taught us some important and painful lessons, not the least of which is how to be creative in times of uncertainty.  With COVID we had no idea of the timeline or the severity of the impact on our businesses.  But recessions are actually more predictable as the timelines noted above have proven.  For most businesses the impact on your bottom line will hurt but it will not be fatal.  Ride it out, tell stakeholders to be patient, and come out the other end grateful and ready to seize the opportunities that always follow.

Start now to examine your business.  It should be structured to withstand tough times and to prosper in the good.  A knee jerk reaction to changes only means that you are structurally inept and that is never sustainable.