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!

Pay it Forward.

There is an element of leadership that appeals to the lone wolf.  This person wants the responsibility of the final decision.  They don’t mind being held accountable.  They are very much a person for whom ‘…the buck stops here…’

The fallacy though is that these aspects of leadership apply to everyone in positions of responsibility.  It is not something unique to the lone wolf.  Every leader is ultimately accountable for the decisions made. But the wise leader also covets the counsel of a trusted mentor and the input of valued associates. The broader the base of quality input, the better that the final decision will be. 

Some may view this is as a sign of weakness; a lack of confidence; or a lack of competence.  In fact, the opposite is true.  When you recognize your own limitations and the value of input, you make superior decisions.  The issue is not the quantity of comments that contribute to the decision but rather the issue is the quality of the decision.

If you already have a mentor, you know what I am talking about.  If not, I urge you to explore your options.  Here are some suggestions worth consideration.

1.     Find someone in your industry in another geographic area whose business is a success.  Develop a relationship that allows both of you to share experiences and offer opinions and support.

2.     Contact speakers/consultants who appear at industry events who have impressed you.  Interview them to determine your level of comfort with their ability to communicate with you on a one to one basis.

3.     Connect with former associates with whom you developed a level of trust and confidence.

4.     Search out blogs that speak to your industry and consider contacting the authors for input.

5.     Use your Chamber of Commerce to source potential mentors whose experiences may not be in your field but who have been successful in their own right.

Clearly these represent only a few options.  The issue is that you find someone whom you trust and with whom you are willing to be open to the point of being vulnerable.  You want someone who is strong enough to be supportive and critical at the same time without you taking personal offence at that which you don’t care to hear.  The goal is to be better and that may not come without some polishing.

Over time you will grow.  Your decision making process and your decisions will improve.  And you will find yourself in a position to mentor others. Pay it forward!

Two outa three ain't bad!

When we delegate an assignment there is an implicit understanding that the individual receives not only the responsibility but also the authority and the accountability to carry out the task. Having the responsibility and accountability is fundamentally unfair without the appropriate authority to carry out the task.  Two outa three does not cut it!

If we build a stool we understand that there must be at least three legs on which to stand if it is to serve its intended purpose.  With only one or two legs you do not sit; you balance in a precarious position.  Two outa three does not cut it!

As a leader, your behaviour comes with certain expectations. Quite apart from competency, a leader’s behaviour must excel in three areas.

1.   It must be legal.

2.   It must be moral.

3.   It must be ethical.

If ‘…two outa three ain’t bad…’ applies, which of the three are you prepared to invalidate?

Before you jump to a conclusion, think about those impacted by your behaviour. On one hand, there are those within your company. This includes those on your team; those to whom you report; and others upon whom you depend to get your job done.

On the other hand there are those outside of the company; your customer base; your suppliers; your allies; your competitors; family and friends; and the public at large.

Now decide which aspect of your character you can afford to compromise without negatively impacting your reputation and your performance.

Perhaps from your perspective ‘two out three ain’t bad’.  But you need to see things from the perspective of those looking up to you.  If they are not worth your best; how and why should you expect their best in return?

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.  Wrap it up in 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. 

Let’s stop sugar coating the truth of the matter.  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 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.

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