The Fallacy of ‘Walt Just Being Walt’

You may have heard that authenticity is really important.  Obviously, it is—especially in leaders.  It’s important for each of us to ‘show up’ authentically—in a way that engenders confidence in others that ‘what they see is what they’ll get’.  The implication is…. just be yourself.  Of course, being yourself doesn’t ensure you produce the right results the right way.

Absent professionalism, authenticity can be a cruel imitation of the real thing.  Walt—a COO in a $900 million for-profit entity—is ‘just being himself’….just ask his staff.  But he undermines the health of the organization by:

***insisting that all management jobs that are being filled in ‘Operations’ through competitive interview be reviewed through his office. 

(Consequence:  effectively this proved to be a way for the COO to personally control virtually all management hires.  He installs people who weren’t the best qualified and weren’t generally deserving of the opportunity.  He creates a legion of ‘yes men’.   Walt was just being Walt—always acting like the smartest guy in the room. This is what he believed himself to be—consistently so.  Naturally, the COO’s direct reports disengage their thinking and throttle their enthusiasm—just waiting for direction from ‘on high’.  The approach is a disaster.)

***habitually running executive level meetings with no agenda.

(Consequence: absent structure, the meetings turn into bull sessions.  Nothing of substance gets done plus attendees become jaded. Walt insists he’s allergic to too much formal structure. He’s definitely ‘being himself’, but the approach proves ineffective.)

***consistently putting a disproportionate amount of his energies into (what others view as) cozy political connections that have a high probability of advancing the COO’s career.     

(Consequence:  The political gamesmanship turns off a lot of people. In the eyes of many, the COO has abandoned his professionalism for careerism.

The COO ultimately proves himself ineffective.  Many see him as a phony. Many important aspects of the operation suffer—results especially.

Be yourself?  Sure.  But be your best self….as a professional would.     

 

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.

 

 

 

Accountability Run Amok—When Good Intentions Succumb To Bad Judgment

Think you can’t be fired for being accountable?  Think again.

A string of historic storms leaves hundreds of thousands of utility customers without power.  The collateral damage associated with clean-up and restoration is far greater than the “Type A” utility president either understood or was willing to acknowledge.

The company president, who had never been short of confidence and had a history of micro-managing, chose to be the media spokesman.  While the president’s stated  intentions were honorable (wanting to model accountability to his troops) they ultimately proved disastrous.

The President’s ‘MO’ always was to make things happen.  True to form, he did.  He went on record with an aggressive restoration target with the media.  On the surface of things, he was being accountable.  The target however was missed…badly so in the eyes of public officials.  Media briefings quickly went from cordial to contentious.  The president conducted the media briefings more like an internal utility briefing than one for media types looking for a juicy controversy.  To say that the president proved to be over-his-head in dealing with the media is an understatement.

Compounding the company’s media relations problem, were the prickly relations that had suddenly developed with public officials over delays in clearing roads and such.  One police department threatened to hold the president responsible for fires made worse by the utility’s sub-par performance. Things got so bad, the governor became actively involved.

The media, sensitive to the public outrage over power being out for over a week in several areas, turned their wrath on the president. When the media smells blood in the water they predictably will take full advantage. Rather than reporting on the company’s extensive restoration efforts, the president then became the story.  Editorial writers, public officials, and citizen bloggers alike put a bulls-eye on his back. The company’s reputation and credibility have been compromised. It becomes a nightmare scenario…. exactly what the company didn’t want to have happen.

After the dust finally clears, the president is forced to resign. The outcome was predictable.

Where did this go wrong?

First and foremost was the president’s decision to act as the media spokesperson.  Despite the president’s likely denials to the contrary, he proved himself ineffective with the media….having neither the skills nor the experience.  He became an all-too-familiar figure on television and in newspaper pages.  Each additional briefing generated more questions than answers.  Adding to the difficulty was the pressure-cooker atmosphere.  This event was arguably one of the company’s most critical PR events in its history.  It is little wonder the president ultimately became known amongst the media as the ‘beleaguered spokesman’.

And would the president have made such a bold prediction on a service restoration date (a bad idea!) had he not been the spokesman?  My guess is that he wouldn’t.  The president’s nature was to be “large-and-in-charge” which typically required a big stage. It wasn’t his habit (or preference) to work through a surrogate—especially on an issue of this magnitude.  (Note: not meeting the promised service restoration date proved to be the beginning of the end for the president.)

So what prompted the decision?  Was it ego or his stated intention to model accountability to the troops? We’ll never really know!  For our purposes, let’s assume his motive was to model accountability.  That decision, however well-intended, was a by-product of bad judgment. The President’s skills and capabilities were numerous.  However handling the media wasn’t one of them! Ultimately his poor decision cost him his job.  Plus, it cost the company big-time—in the form of a tarnished reputation.

Accountability is paramount in high performing organizations, but it must be preceded by good judgment.  Charging into the proverbial mine field (being accountable…putting the team on your back)  with inadequate skills and experience is bound to make things worse, not better….just ask the (now former) President!

Fix, Fence, Fire —Three Options For Productive Misfits

One of Steve Jobs first positions in the corporate world was at the legendary game-maker Atari.  (Pong anyone?)  Eventually Atari’s management put him on the night shift.  It seems Jobs prickly personality and hygiene habits (he didn’t bathe regularly) were putting off his co-workers.  Atari’s management recognized Jobs talent but didn’t quite know what to do with him.  Thus, they ‘fenced’ him.  On the night shift, Jobs could still contribute while having far fewer interactions with others.

Jobs was a ‘productive misfit’—someone who was obviously capable but, for whatever reasons, didn’t really fit in. Sometimes the reason(s) the ‘productive misfit’ doesn’t fit in is of their own doing, sometimes it isn’t.  Regardless, the dilemma for leadership is—what do you do with them?  You want the production, but you don’t want the drama that goes with it.

Be clear that the productive misfit typically has a unique (and challenging) personality—either a non-conformist, an over-achiever at heart, a contrarian, or just an (unbridled) stallion.  Sometimes it’s combinations of all four!

Fundamentally there’s three options for productive misfits—you can fix ‘em, fence ‘em, or fire ‘em. Notice we’re talking about people who are productive (or could be).  We’re not talking about the non-productive employee, a disgruntled employee or someone who is just a naysayer.

Atari ‘fenced’ Jobs—they took him out of the mainstream and had him work more independently.  Sometimes this works, sometimes not. Sometimes it’s not possible to ‘fence’ someone due to operational dynamics. Terrell Owens, the brilliant (but culturally poisonous) wide receiver who once starred for the San Francisco 49ers, would have been an ideal candidate for such an arrangement absent his playing a team sport.

In Jobs case he was exceptionally bright, saw himself as special, and felt that the rules didn’t apply to him—a natural set of conditions when considering whether to ‘fence’ someone or not.  Turns out, Atari had operating flexibility on its night shift and that’s where Jobs ended up.

Misfit mega producers are natural candidates for the ‘fencing’ option…as it initially feels like a better option than firing the individual.  For instance, consider the partner in the law firm who brings in 30% of the firm’s revenue (a gargantuan amount) based on one long-standing mega-client.  No one in the firm knows much about this client …as the partner who serves the client is not forthcoming (others call it secretive) about the client’s issues and needs. The partner, in effect, has created a dependency—which only he can fulfill.

Given that the partner in question is eighteen months away from retirement…the other partners are between a rock and a hard place. Firing the misfit partner (if that were even possible) would more than likely result in losing the prized client…and the enormous revenue stream that goes with it.  For now, the partner in question has effectively ‘fenced’ themselves– much to the chagrin of his fellow partners.

Of course, firing can be an option…but most leaders typically consider this a last resort. Unfortunately, this often delays the inevitable.  General Myers (the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) told me about a wildly successful general they once considered for promotion from two star to three star.  They ultimately passed on him (effectively firing him).  The reason?  The guy was a renegade…and the approach he used as a two star to get his impressive results would surely backfire on the bigger stage brought on by a three star’s responsibilities. Worse yet, the general selectively lived the values the organization subscribed to.

This last point—a disconnect in values—is often where many ‘values-centered’ organizations draw the line when it comes to firing ‘productive misfits’.  Because values are considered to be a fundamental prerequisite to such an organization’s success, no one is above them—regardless of one’s ability to produce in the short term.  Getting results the wrong way in a company like GE or Nucor Steel will get you shown the door.

Of course, coaching (fixing people) is always an option. It’s commonly the first tool pulled from the ‘three f’ bag in attempting to help productive misfits.  Coaching can certainly help…and there are many approaches when considering coaching options…but you first must be dealing with a willing candidate…one you can confidently envision achieving success.  For strong personalities (e.g. the two star general or Steve Jobs for that matter) coaching may not prove to be particularly helpful.

It takes great judgment when dealing effectively with productive misfits…largely because there’s a myriad of factors in play.  The choices are pretty limited and ultimately require as much courage as they do judgment.  In the end, what makes the process easier is being extremely clear about your values and as an organization what you’re trying to be.  When you’re clear about these two items, what you should do about the productive misfit often becomes rather intuitive.

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!

The Power of Professionalism Is Finalist For Soundview’s Business Book of the Year

Yesterday Soundview Executive Book Summaries announced that The Power of Professionalism is one of five finalists for their prestigious Harold Longman Business Book of the Year award.  We’re honored to be considered.

Soundview’s subscribers vote amongst five books that comprise the finalists.   I’m not clear when the winner will be announced but Soundview will eventually post the results on their web-site.  We’ll let you know how it turns out.

 

Sniffing Out BS–Help For Your Meetings

Steve Jobs had what others called a ‘reality distortion field’.  In other words, there were times in which Jobs didn’t have a good grasp on reality. He was a showman that  believed his own stories—even ones that were without merit. Complicating the situation, Jobs would be prone to exaggerate, misrepresent facts, manipulate resources to his benefit—things that didn’t engender trust. (Note: there were other times in which Jobs used his reality distortion field to push people to do things that were thought to be impossible—arguably a good thing.)

People wrote this off to “Steve just being Steve.”  Jobs was far more prone to do this than most of us.  Yet, there were times when Steve’s inability to see reality hurt his  organization’s ability to do great work.  Each of us, in varying degrees, do this too…believing our own stories. Let’s get real here…some of our stories just don’t reflect reality.  And when our inability to be objective goes unchallenged it retards our organization’s ability to do great work.

General Richard Myers, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew this. While Chairman, General Myers introduced a protocol for the meetings held by the Joint Chiefs. The protocol was intended to sniff out (what they considered to be) someones ‘BS’. ‘BS’ was considered to be people’s stories that didn’t reflect reality, comments that bordered on wishful thinking, or diatribes that bordered on self-delusional grandeur. The Joint Chiefs committed themselves to do great work–and that meant calling out people on their ‘stuff’.

General Myers, a contributor to The Power of Professionalism, told me the protocol worked great for them. That’s been my experience too. Calling people out on their ‘stuff’ in some organizations can initially feel like it’s personal. However, over time people get beyond that.  The reason is simple—the focus is on the work, not the person.

Meeting protocols (a meeting norm) produce better meetings…which is condusive to doing great work.  Today’s blog identifies one such norm. Simply put…it’s a pre-meeting agreement that makes it safer for people to speak up on a sensitive topic. You can compliment this meeting norm by having attendees throw a soft-sided object (or equivalent) at a predetermined location (or even a person) when a meeting norm is violated.  This introduces a lighter side to an otherwise touchy situation. There’s a gazillion ways to compliment a meeting norm in this manner.

To do great work, you’ve got to be objective.  You’ve got to see the world as it is–not how we want it to be. Using this type of meeting protocol helps keep everyone honest…keeps people on track…and gives you the best chance to do great work.

 

 

.

 

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.

 

Frances Hesselbein–Special Person, Special Professional, Special Leader

I considered myself fortunate to have Frances Hesselbein as a contributor to The Power of Professionalism.  She’s a remarkable woman. The legendary Peter Drucker once called Frances the most effective executive he had ever met. I better understood what Drucker meant when I interviewed Frances in her New York office in April 2008.  Recently Fortune ran an article on Frances–ninety six years young and still going strong. I thought you’d appreciate reading it.