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.

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?

When Unique Knowledge Trumps The ‘Wisdom’ Of Crowds

Our Nov 3rd post—Ask The Right Person The Right Question—pointed out that for us to be confident in the answers to our questions,  it’s imperative that the person(s) be ‘in a position to know’.  Perhaps that seems obvious, but too often questions are asked of people that aren’t really informed on the subject in question.   This is especially true when it comes to surveys.

Consider the sample survey we use to assess the strength of the mind-sets within an organization.  A seven point scale is assigned to each of the seven mind-sets—seven is great and one is terrible.  An organization may score consistently high (6.3) in mind-set #1 (professionals have a bias for results) across the entire enterprise.  Mind-set #2 (Professionals realize (and act like) they’re a part of something bigger than themselves) may also score well (5.4).

The score of 6.3 for mind-set #1 seems like a natural in light of the organization achieving 110% of its annual revenue goal—the organization’s most important objective for the year.  Across all departments, no department scored mind-set #1 lower than 6.0—showing great consistency across all departments.

Mind-set #2 is another story.  Every department scored mind-set #2 at least a six—except for one.  The CFO’s office collectively scored mind-set two a 3.1.  It was the scores from the CFO’s office that brought the overall score for mind-set two down to 5.4.  Was there unique knowledge contained within the CFO’s office that prompted the 3.1?  Turns out, there was!

In light of the great revenue year, the company was sitting on a pile of cash. Instead of paying down the company’s extensive debt, the organization’s leaders (by way of a contentious 60%/40% vote) elected to take generous bonuses instead.  This ultimately proved problematic as creditors later came with saber’s rattling.

Those in the CFO’s office had unique knowledge.  In turn, they scored mind-set #2 poorly—deservedly so.  Had the rest of the enterprise known the same, no doubt, they too would have scored mind-set #2 poorly.  What initially looked like a pretty good score for mind-set #2 turned out to be a false-positive.  This was caused by the lack of good information…people were simply ill-informed.

Sometimes what looks like a survey aberration is really an important by-product of unique knowledge.  It would have been a mistake to become confident about the survey results associated with mind-set #2 from the raw numbers alone.   Confidence should stem from informed choices….and reinforces the point that people aren’t necessarily ‘in the know’ as much as we assume.

 

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.

Debra…Big-Time Difference-Maker

Jim “Gymbeaux” Brown of Slidell, Louisiana shares this instructive experience.

“Years ago while in a previous position, I traveled a lot and would leave my home around 6:00 AM.  There was a fast food restaurant between my home and the exit on the interstate where I would stop for a cup of coffee.  It wasn’t a big sale—less than a dollar.  This fast food restaurant was—believe it or not—special.”

“Normally, I would stop at the microphone at the menu sign and wait for the expected raspy, non-engaged voice asking me if I wanted the latest value meal.  That wasn’t the case at this place. Instead I heard the most pleasant voice say, “Good morning, this is Debra, how may I help you?” “

“Seriously?  Someone at a fast food restaurant who actually wanted to help me…and wasn’t interested in pushing their latest meal deal?   I was impressed.  Yet, it got even better.”

“As I sat at the window waiting for my cup of coffee, Debra appeared.  She had my coffee.  I gave her a $5.00 bill.  Her attention to detail and professionalism blew me away.  She placed her hand beneath my outstretched hand, placed the bills in the palm of my hand first and then added the changed on top of the bills which allowed me to close my hand without the possibility of dropping the change all over the parking lot.  Now I was even more impressed.”

“Then she handed me the cup of coffee and asked if I wanted cream and sugar for the coffee.”

“”Thank you for stopping by, have a very nice day.”  I told her thank you and to also have a nice day and left for my trip and left her a tip.  Tipping a fast food employee is unheard of, but I was thrilled to do it….as that brief exchange with Debra set an amazing tone for the rest of my day.”

“Every time I left on a trip I made a point to stop at THAT restaurant.  Every time the experience with Debra was the same.  It got to the point I stopped not for the coffee but rather to hear Debra’s voice and her good wishes.  I wrote a note to management and complimented them AND Debra on how she conducted herself and how professional she was.”

“Now for the rest of the story.  This experience was over 20 years ago–and I still tell that story to this day. It was about two weeks after I wrote the thank you note that I stopped by as usual for coffee.    When I pulled up to the window, this time was different.  Debra took my hand but not to put change in it.  She said, “I know it was you who wrote the note to my manager.  Because of the note, I got a raise and wanted to thank you.”

As Jim noted, he ended up going to that restaurant because of Debra.  She made the kind of difference that resulted in drawing people back to her (and the restaurant) over and over.  Imagine how many others like Jim she influenced.

Whether Debra ‘showed up’ as a professional because of her upbringing or because of the restaurant’s management—we’ll never know.  We do know that Debra’s capabilities were recognized by management and she was ultimately promoted.  Unfortunately for Jim the promotion meant that she no longer worked the window.  The service, Jim later observed, was never the same.

Debra was exceptional.  She stood out. She showed up as a professional would—yes, even at a fast food joint.  So impressed, Jim wrote a thank you note.  Nobody does that.

Every organization seeking competitive advantage should be scouring the countryside high and low, day and night for more Debra’s.  Now would be a good time to start.

 

 

Ask The Right Person The Right Question

I frequent a local independent hardware store that I’ve became a big fan of.  It’s a small store, but it’s been rare that they didn’t have the stuff (or the advice) I need.  Their people are knowledgeable.  They are patient—especially when I ask a question that only an annoying novice would ask.  They won’t sell me a $5.00 solution, when a 50 cent solution will do.  They’ve earned my loyalty.  I send my friends  there.

But, as good as they are, when I have a particularly vexing problem I routinely ask the staff  “who is your most knowledgeable person who can help me with such and such a problem?  It could be an electrical problem or plumbing problem or painting problem…doesn’t matter.  I ask this screening question because I’ve learned that nearly all their staff will have an opinion about what the solution to my problem is–regardless of their qualifications to render that opinion.  Occasionally this has led to a less-than-optimal solution. (I don’t hold it against them, I realize they’re just trying to be helpful.)

Sometimes we forget that the staff’s expertise isn’t necessarily always interchangeable.  We need to ask the right person, the right question, at the right time.  In a marketing department, the experiences and perspectives from the folks in advertising will be very different from those in demand generation.  Asked an identical question, their responses will naturally be different.

Simply put:  when I have a question whose answer is dependent on a higher degree of expertise, I seek that expertise out. In other words, I try to ask the person who is best qualified to answer my question.  In doing so, I’m more apt to get the very best advice while avoiding some well-intended (but less informed) people to influence me towards a so-so solution.  This is one way to ensure getting the optimal results as we advocated in The Power of Professionalism.   

I’ve noticed that workplace managers are prone to asking questions of people who aren’t necessarily in the best position to answer them.  When asked, most people will answer…it’s human nature.   Usually they do so because they’re trying to be helpful (while avoiding looking ignorant at the same time).  Plus, people (like the folks at the hardware store) will always be pleased to share their opinion.  After all, it makes them feel important.

The manager, as a reality check, should always be asking themselves, “how confident am I in the answers people are giving me?” Screening questions—analogous to the one I used at the hardware store—will help keep managers (or anyone else for that matter) out of the weeds.

How Mind-Set Three Aids Fledgling Entrepreneurs In Venture Funding

I recently attended a chapter meeting of the Keiretsu Forum.  The Keiretsu Forum provides a medium for young, high-potential companies needing venture funding to meet potential investors.  The companies need the funding to sustain their current operations or, more typically, take their business to the next level.  Obtaining that  funding is critical!  For some, the lack of additional venture funding can mean languishing in mediocrity or worse.

The investors can be a tough bunch…and well they should.  Many of these enterprises must overcome long odds to succeed.  Investors need to be both thoughtful and  prudent. They routinely scrutinize balance sheets, market strategies, and the like. But often their greatest scrutiny is of the entrepreneur’s themselves.  It’s, arguably, the most important factor to get right.

Investors love “coachable entrepreneurs”. Why? Because entrepreneurs who can’t learn ‘on the fly’ will likely fail.  And investors–who typically were once successful entrepreneurs themselves—often become the source of deep insights for the fledgling entrepreneur-leader. Often the investors are the entrepreneur’s best source of advice.

Know-it-all entrepreneurs usually have a short business life-span. The fast and furious start-up experience has too many moving parts –each of which requires specialized expertise–for people not to ask for advice.

On the other hand, entrepreneurs who are constantly asking questions (because they realize there’s so much they don’t know) have a much better shot at flourishing. These are people who have a mind-set that suggests that ‘things get better when they get better’  (mind-set #3).  They plan, execute, evaluate and learn….then repeat the process until they get it right.

When an investor comes to the conclusion that the entrepreneur is uncoachable…it usually signals the beginning of the end.  It doesn’t matter how smart or creative the person is. Without the ‘coachable’ trait the entrepreneur is unlikely to get funded.The investor, who is all-too-aware of how difficult the uncoachable entrepreneur can be,   opts out.  He keeps his financial powder dry, patiently awaiting the next potential deal.

This attribute of personal leadership (being uncoachable) often makes or breaks people very quickly in the entrepreneurial world. Investors simply won’t put up with it.  In the ‘corporate world’ it’s another story.  Uncoachable people in mainstream corporate environments ‘flame out’ much later–at least comparatively.  There’s lots of reasons why…but it doesn’t change the ‘drag’ the person typically has on the organization. Imagine if the corporate ‘uncoachables’ were forced to justify their funding each year by a rough-and-tumble investor.  Boy, how things would change!

Lessons From Baseball’s Playoffs

Baseball’s playoffs are upon us. The teams are all exceptionally talented. With rare exception, it’s tough to differentiate one team from another–at least in terms of their respective capabilities. Often the difference between a winning and losing playoff team are a lot of little things….things that some would dismiss as merely ‘intangible’. But those intangibles often make all the difference…they build commitment by infusing energy into the team.

Consider:

  • the hustling outfielder who makes a brilliant highlight-reel catch, saving an important run….this despite risking a head-long crash into the wall.  (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)
  • the pitcher who methodically mixes up his arsenal of pitches, playing havoc with the hitter’s most precious commodity (his timing) and guaranteeing himself an early shower due to a high pitch count. (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)
  • the light-hitting journeyman who consistently and methodically works elite pitchers to full counts—frustrating the pitchers, sapping the life out of their arms, and shortening their all-important ‘innings pitched’—all the while putting his own numbers at risk. (consistent with Mind-Sets 1 & 2)

These, admittedly, are little things. But they are the types of things that help win championships. They are emblematic of the Mind-Sets held by the finest professionals among us. And when these mind-sets are predominate within an organization–the organization wins.

Want your organization to win its own championship? The Mind-Sets are often the secret ingredient!

This Place Is Great!

Last week we pointed out how people become disgusted with their organization (and especially with their organization’s leadership) when professional ideals are either ignored or abandoned. The consequences are significant. Morale goes in the tank. Good people leave….and when they do it costs about 1.5 times a professional’s annual salary to replace them!

On the other hand, when an organization earns the reputation that it’s a great place to work…that it’s run by professionals…that professional ideals are a given…you see people taking pride in the organization….you notice that people care about how they conduct themselves. When that happens, it’s not unusual to see:

  • people willing to take less money or even put up with a longer commute for the opportunity to work there.
  • people giving management the benefit of the doubt when a needed, but controversial, policy is issued.
  • people recruiting ‘A’ list players within their network to work there –without having been asked to do so.

When people feel their organization is a great place to work they’ll do these types of things–and more!

I see it all the time…two sales offices…two call centers…two warehouse operations…all part of the same company. They have identical business purposes and job functions.  Invariably, I’ll notice differences….frequently BIG differences. You see the differences in the people…in their demeanor, in their focus, in their commitment. The reason for the differences?  One organization is run by professionals, the other isn’t.

John Bogle (founder of the financial services giant The Vanguard Group and one of the contributors to The Power of Professionalism) noted that the most important things in life were the most difficult to measure. How true. Yet all-important things like trust and pride are easy to spot in an organization run by professionals.