Status Quo—The Key Differentiator Between Managers and Leaders

A new hire arrives on the scene full of enthusiasm and wonder.  During the course of their business-unit orientation, the newbie’s coach spends the majority of their time helping them prepare for success.  The gist of what the coach communicates is, “this is what we do and how we do it.”   Without realizing it, the coach has described the business unit’s status quo—‘the way things are’.  For the ‘new kid on the block’, this information proves invaluable.

Recognizing and understanding the status quo is important. Departments have them, job classifications have them, individuals have them.  Naturally, the  enterprise has them. The status quo is the condition that is produced when processes, policies, procedures, and cultural norms are all amalgamated. The status quo is ultimately a reflection of the level (and depth) of thinking within the organization.

While understanding the status quo is initially helpful for the newbie, it can be death for the veteran and the greater organization of which they are a part.

***The status quo will ultimately prove to have minimal impact for a mature  operating company wishing to strip significant expenses from its cost structure.

***The status quo will ultimately prove the undoing for the technician who hasn’t significantly upgraded their skills in five years.

***The status quo (and the complacency that goes with it) will ultimately prove the downfall for an organization desiring to be ‘the best of the best’.

Today’s market leaders think differently—they abhor aspects of the status quo that hold them back. That’s why:

In general, managers make the status quo more efficient, while leaders create a new status quo. While efficiencies are desirable, they’ll ultimately prove insufficient for those desiring market leadership.

A new status quo is a big deal—whether it’s for an individual, a department or an enterprise.  The scale doesn’t matter, impact does.  What will it be for you?       

The Dreaded Heart-To-Heart Conversation With A Beleaguered Colleague

A colleague of yours (let’s call her Janet) isn’t meeting expectations—neither performance targets nor cultural norms.   You know it…everyone else does too.  What Janet is doing (or not doing) threatens the organization’s results.  That means a lot of people (you included) will likely get hurt if her shenanigans continues.

Your gut screams for you to have a heart-to-heart with Janet—you know, peer-to-peer.   What do you do?

It’s interesting the things we tell ourselves when faced with a situation like this:

*** ”If I speak up, our relationship will never be the same.”

*** “It’s not appropriate for me to speak up. This is a job for the boss…that’s why they get paid the big bucks.”

*** “I don’t have the communication skills to pull this off.”

*** “Surely, Janet will be offended if I speak up.”

*** “It isn’t my place to judge.”

I’m confident you can think of plenty of additional examples.  Notice what great lengths we will go to in justifying not speaking up.  Certainly, the situation with Janet requires good judgment and a great deal of decorum, but rest assured that many of us are masters at finding ‘cause’ for not speaking up. (And, yes, an organization’s culture can be an impediment to not speaking up.)

Yet, part of the motivation underlying our unwillingness to speak up (e.g. to be direct with people) is often our own desire to be liked—to be thought of well by others.  When that occurs, it becomes all  about us.

Admittedly, this is one of the most difficult things to get people to do in organizations.  Let’s face it…it’s   risky.  Yet it happens.  You see it in team sports, in the for-profit world, etc. The degree to which an organization’s colleagues (as opposed to just the boss) hold each other accountable is often an indicator as to how well the organization performs.

People’s willingness to speaking up to one of their colleagues is also a reflection as to how committed people are to the organization’s results…..in other words, the degree to which they hold MS #1—having a bias for results.  The commitment to the result becomes a lynchpin in helping us overcome our own human tendencies not to act.

Other MS’s help people in speaking up too; namely all the rest— MS #2- MS #7.  That’s unusual, but it just goes to show how it really takes a professional who is secure in their own skin to speak up in an admittedly uncomfortable situation like this one with Janet.

In spite of all the reasons one might conjure up to avoid approaching Janet, the professional speaks up.    The reason is simple—they’re committed to the result (MS #1).  They know it’s not about them (MS #2) and they know that they need to rise above the fray (MS #4).  Ultimately, they commit to do what they know is right (MS #5).  It’s rarely easy, it’s never fun—but, in the end, they do it.

It’s what professionals do.

 

 

 

Enter Howard Buffett–Future Guardian of the Culture at Berkshire Hathaway

In an interview on 60 Minutes Warren Buffett (the ultimate numbers guy) has indicated that he wants his son Howard to eventually take over as Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway.  Howard, a farmer, knows a fraction of the securities business that anyone else currently at Berkshire Hathaway knows.  Why, then, does Warren want Howard (of all people) to be his successor?  According to Warren, Howard will be the ‘guardian of the culture’!  Warren believes that, upon his transition from the firm, the thing that would unravel Berkshire Hathaway faster than anything else is the dilution of the culture at Berkshire Hathaway.

As Warren knows only too well, what a principled culture giveth, an unprincipled one taketh away!

An Important Reminder From Jim Collins About ‘A’ Cultures

In The Power of Professionalism we advocated that there were three levels in  assessing whether an organization had centered their culture on professional ideals. ‘A’ was the best, ‘B’ was OK, and ‘C’ was…well…out of the running.  Almost without exception, it’s the dedication (and discipline) of the organization’s leaders that enable an ‘A’ culture to become that way.

It’s within an ‘A’ culture that people gather to do great work, to solve big problems, to (borrowing an over-used phrase) make a difference. Granted, these are not at the exclusion of self-interest….but it’s not their express purpose.

Consider this quote from Jim Collins and Morten Hansen’s wonderful new book Great By Choice

“The greatest leaders we’ve studied throughout all of our research cared as much about values as victory, as much about purpose as profit, as much about being useful as being successful.”

If one were able to concoct a secret sauce for an ‘A’ culture, the “great leaders” Collins alludes to would be the very first ingredient.

 

Have You Washed Your Hands?

Hospital acquired infections can prove a serious danger to unsuspecting patients—especially those already vulnerable due to illness and such.  Inadequate hygiene practice on the part of doctors and nurses is often the culprit.  Simply put…that can mean forgetting to wash one’s hands before coming in contact with a patient.  Proper hygiene practice is more than merely the washing of one’s hands, but it’s certainly a big (and obvious) part of it.

Kaiser Permanente ( a well-known health care provider in my area) tackled this problem head-on…even if it meant taking on some sacred cows.  I learned this first-hand while aiding my 83 year old mother during her pre-surgery orientation at the hospital.  The nurse explained what was expected of my mother (i.e. no fluids after midnight, no wearing of any jewelry, etc).

Most of the instructions were predictable, but there was one big surprise at the end.  “Now there’s one last thing you must do any time any of the nurses or doctors are about to treat you.”  “What’s that?” my mother asked.  The nurse smiled, “Ask them if they have washed their hands.”  My mom wasn’t sure if the nurse was serious.  ”You’re kidding, right?” my mom asked.  The nurse absolutely was serious.  Turns out, every patient gets the same request about asking the staff if they have washed their hands.

My mother was unaccustomed to asking her care givers (doctors especially) such questions—largely for fear of offending them.  Certainly, she wasn’t bashful about asking more technically-oriented questions.  But the ‘hand-washing’ thing threw her for a loop.  At first she thought it demeaning to ask a specialist who has a gazillion years invested in training the same question she used to ask me as a little kid before we’d sit down for dinner.  These aren’t children, she argued.  She concluded that the question was too basic, too fundamental to really have any real impact.  Plus, the last thing you want as a patient is to have your care-giver get ticked-off at you.

But later, in a moment of bashful curiosity, mom (in her own round-about way) asked the ‘hand-washing’ question of her surgeon.  He wasn’t offended in the least.  In fact, he thanked her for asking.  That was all it took, mom began to ask the ‘hand-washing’ question all the time—at times shamelessly.    It seemed she even took some small measure of delight in it.

The sacred cow (the inquisition of a doctor by a lay person questioning the doctor’s commitment and discipline) had been put out to pasture.   Hooray for Kaiser— and other like-minded health care providers—- who have accomplished this marvelous breakthrough.  Their culture is now healthier…more capable of delivering  even greater health care results…far less likely to unintentionally infect a patient….all consistent with mind-set #1 which is all about having a bias for results.

Each organization has their own sacred cows that retard the health of their organization’s culture.  As Kaiser demonstrated, sacred cows can be overcome with commitment and perseverance.

In your organization, what sacred cows would you like to put out to pasture?

Getting Out Of Your Own Way

Mind-set #1 is about having a bias for results. Get results and you’ll be trusted.  Simple.  Naturally,    people say they hold this mind-set…after all, that’s what they feel others expect them to say.  But saying you’re committed and demonstrating it are two different things.  It’s when one’s buttons get pushed, when one’s comfort zone gets invaded that you really find out whether the commitment is real or faux.  Turning up the heat acts as the ultimate stress test…as you’ll soon out if you’re committed to really delivering results or not.

What happens when:

***the entrepreneur with a great new idea seriously questions whether they are the right person to bring the idea to fruition.

***the senior officer in the Fortune 500 realizes she’s about to hire someone smarter and perhaps more capable than she is.

***the managing partner who willingly steps aside to aid the ensuing merger with another firm.

Sometimes getting out of our own way is the very best thing we can do in bringing forth the best possible results.  It may require that we put our ego aside or lose control to a third party.  It may result in being relegated to the shadows, instead of the spotlight.  It may mean taking a short term financial hit.  It may just break our heart.  Know in the end it’s always few who take this less-traveled road.  They may not like it, but they do it anyway.  After all, it’s who they are—namely professionals.

Professionals: Not What, But How

In our August 30, 2011 post we illustrated why it’s a bad idea to think an organization should automatically be considered ‘professional’ because it produces technically sophisticated products developed by really smart people. A recent article in Fortune couldn’t have been more timely or effective in complimenting that earlier post. The story–based at the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer–is outstanding.  It’s one of the best business articles I’ve read in a really long time. Here’s the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/28/pfizer-jeff-kindler-shakeup/

There is perhaps no greater threat to an organization than dysfunction in the top team. And when that top team leads the world’s largest drug company, the potential consequences are huge. ’Inside Pfizer’s palace coup’ is the title of the article. Trust me–it’s aptly titled. In terms of bad behavior, these people had nothing on Machiavelli. Revenge, betrayal, power-grabs…it’s all there. If this story would have taken place in the military, it would have been described as ‘behavior unbecoming’.

Pfizer’s historical performance has largely been impressive….they make technically sophisticated stuff….they have exceptionally bright people. Yet ‘professional’ is a term that most reasonable people would find hard to use in describing Pfizer’s top team after reading this article. And, of course, the whole organization takes a big ‘hit’ because of that. It’s simply unavoidable. Remember—most people define an organization as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers but by how they go about their business. Pfizer’s experience should always be a reminder of that.

Loose Threads

Resisting the urge to pull on a loose thread can be tough for some of us. Lest you think today’s post is about fabric, it isn’t. Loose threads are interpersonal teases.

They occur in meetings when someone:

  • makes an innocent error on an inconsequential fact
  • pauses for a moment to gather their train-of-thought
  • says something provocative in a well-intended attempt to challenge people’s thinking

What do you do when this occurs? Pull on the thread or leave well-enough alone? Some pull on the thread—interrupting the speaker, asking an inappropriate question, filling a void in the meeting with our own ‘stuff’, or taking the conversation in an unhelpful direction. We tell ourselves we’re being helpful…

…but closer to the truth is we’ve been unable to resist having the last word or getting in our two cents. In other words, it’s about us—often a not-so-veiled attempt to show how smart or important we are.

In meetings this can be death—especially for the inexperienced or ineffective leader/presenter. How many times have we all seen meetings completely unravel because one or more attendees couldn’t resist the urge to pull on a loose thread or two? This is not only frustrating, but expensive too.

Professionals resist the urge to pull on loose threads, largely because they:

  • quickly turn from one into eight (people pile on)
  • knock the leader/speaker off their train-of-thought
  • are a catalyst in derailing a meeting’s momentum
  • are a sign of disrespect

Professionals aspire to master their emotions—especially when it comes to pulling on loose threads.

When Sacrifice Isn’t

A wide receiver throws a great block, springing his running back teammate around the corner for a 15 yard gain. The announcer in the booth (a former wide receiver himself) sings the wide-out’s praises–finally paying him the ultimate compliment by commending him for how he ‘sacrificed himself’.

Huh?  Last time I checked football was a team sport.  Suggesting that the wide receiver (a ‘skill’ player) was ‘sacrificing himself’ by performing a skill with less prestige (blocking)…or by suggesting that he did it begrudgingly (because he dislikes it)…or by suggesting it’s especially admirable because it’s out of his comfort zone is myopic. It’s a team sport. People are expected to do what’s required to achieve the desired result. He’s not sacrificing himself, he’s attempting to help his team win!

I’ve noticed that managers are sometimes like the announcer…they think that when one of their ‘skill players’ performs a ‘lesser skill’ (something ‘beneath them’) they consider the ‘skill player’ to be making a sacrifice. Regretfully, these managers haven’t caught the vision of mind-set #2 – being a part of something bigger than yourself.

Consider:

  • the busy rainmaker at the law firm who takes their precious time and shares their considerable influence to open an important door for a colleague.
  • the mechanical foreman who takes 20 minutes out their day to provide encouragement and technical advice to a second-year apprentice who has run into a particularly vexing problem.
  • the theme park GM who– one day a month–works ‘the front lines’.
  • the Marketing VP who willingly gives up 5% of their departmental budget to R&D as a result of an unexpected new research breakthrough.

Neither the rainmaker, the foreman, the GM, nor the VP, consider themselves to be ‘sacrificing’. They, like the wide-receiver, realize they’re a part of something bigger than themselves. They’re a part of a team – they do what is required for the team to succeed.

People on winning teams constantly do things that may be out of the norm or that stretches them but they are rarely seen as a ‘sacrifice’. It’s just not how they see things.