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.

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.

 

‘Professional’–A Super Identity

Mitch Wasden— chief executive officer at Ochsner Medical Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana—recently posted an interesting article on the Harvard Business Review Blog Network about ‘Identity’. Those of you familiar with The Power of Professionalism know that one’s ‘professional’ identity is at core of my new book. ‘Professional’ , as I point out in my follow-up comment to Mitch’s article on the HBR site, is really a ‘super identity’. It’s unique. Check out Mitch’s article–along with my comment. I’ve also re-printed my comment below:

_____________________

“Identity, indeed, is at the root of so many of one’s decisions and subsequent actions.  And Mitch is right that identities can work at cross purposes.  It’s my view there’s one identity In the workplace that trumps all others—that of being a professional.  It’s like a super identity.   It’s  powerful because it truly identifies who you are — not what you do.  This helps minimize the cross-purpose problem.”

“After all, isn’t that what an identity is supposed to do….give us a clear picture of who we are…as opposed to what we do ( being an ‘expert’, being an accountant, etc).  Too often our identities are centered on what our vocation or expertise is (what we do).  Do those Identities drive our decisions and actions? Absolutely!  But…

…it’s my view it’s more important to be a professional who happens to be an expert….more important to be a professional who happens to write code…be a nurse…or be a CEO for that matter. The reason is simple….it’s because of how the professional thinks…the professional holds certain mind-sets.”

“For instance, a professional realizes they’re part of something bigger than themselves–and they act like it.  So take the expert in the meeting in which he’s challenged. Sure his ego is going to take a hit….but which identity would you prefer the individual to hold in that situation…”I’m an expert” or “I’m a professional who happens to be an expert”?  Which identity would contribute to a more constructive outcome–for the individual expert as well as the group collectively?  Which identity would help avoid a contentious confrontation?  Which identity would best aid a constructive conversation?  Which identity is going to help the ‘expert’ bring out his ‘best self’ in that situation?”

“I’ve found that it’s the latter —“I’m a professional who happens to be an expert”. The professional knows by default (because of being part of ‘something bigger’) that “I’m a team member”—and (generally) they act accordingly.  This is why one’s ‘professional’ identity trumps other, arguably more tactical, ones.”

NOTE: I’ve identified seven mind-sets held by trusted professionals…the one above, plus six others. .

“Unfortunately, too often we’ve forgotten what it really means to be a professional. Consistent with that, I’ve also found that few hold ‘professional’ as a core part of their identity.  That’s unfortunate, but it’s something I’m working on.”

Bill Wiersma, Author– The Power of Professionalism (2011)

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.

Professionals Just Don’t Do That

A woman co-hosting  a call-in radio program chimes-in on a technical question from a caller.  She goes on at nauseam about the topic.  A different caller later challenges her conclusion.   After back-pedaling for what seemed like an eternity, the woman finally acknowledged she knew little about the subject.  It took guts for her to acknowledge that—but , for me, that experience was like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Professionals just don’t do that.

When faced with a similar situation, the professional would acknowledge that the question wasn’t  within their field of expertise and suggest an alternative person to talk to.

It’s usually ego that drives us to chime in when we shouldn’t.  Sure…we all want to look good…have credibility in the eyes of others…and more!   But portraying ourselves as an expert when we shouldn’t  will almost always backfire in the end.

Last week I mentioned I recently attended Keiretsu—a forum for entrepreneurs and investors to meet, collaborate, and perhaps put together a deal.  An investor asked a particularly insightful question of one of the entrepreneurs that put the entrepreneur on the spot—largely because it required some additional research.  Rather than wing it, the entrepreneur answered the portion of the question he could and asked for the gentleman’s card so he could follow-up on the remainder of his question.  That made big points with the investor.  The entrepreneur, who had already gotten off on the right foot, became even more impressive in the eyes of the investor.

The willingness to be vulnerable in the way this entrepreneur did is a sign of being comfortable in your own skin.  It’s keeping one’s ego in check (consistent with mind-set six) …a demonstration of maturity…a sign of being a trusted professional.

 

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!

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.

An Abundance of Professionals ≠ A Professional Organization

To what degree does ‘professional’ describe your organization?

That’s a question that I frequently ask of senior leaders. Naturally, they’ll bend into a pretzel to answer in the affirmative.  After all, the answer reflects on them—for better or worse.

Most of the senior leaders justify their affirmative responses by the nature of the service or product that the organization provides (or attempts to provide).  In other words, the senior leader considers their organization ‘professional’ because, at the end of the day, it delivers an innovative technology or sage business counsel.  You know, these are organizations with big-brain scientists, highly-trained marketers, time-tested engineers, etc as a core part of their staff. Some are considered experts. In other words, the senior leaders justify their affirmative answer because of what the organization ultimately produces (e.g. a serum, sophisticated advice, a bridge).  It’s true that specialized expertise was required to produce each—specifically technical expertise.

But what’s not so obvious was that the serum was late to market (beaten out by a competitor who was first to market by six months). This development ultimately undermined the serum’s competitive advantage in the marketplace. The bridge was 30% over budget and took twice as many internal resources as once thought. Heads rolled as a result of the cost over-runs and client dissatisfaction.

Let’s look at it from the trenches.  If people inside the organization…

  • Don’t know what the organization’s priorities are (e.g. ever-changing or unclear priorities)
  • Can’t count on internal resource commitments to be honored (e.g. downward pressure on budgets become commonplace…decision surrounding budgets become capricious)
  • Have lost confidence in the organization’s ability to meet production deadlines (e.g.  the unwillingness of management to stick with commitments is often the culprit here)
  • Have become accustomed to whimsical decision-making on management’s part (e.g. “Just hold tight.  Wait five minutes, things will change.” )
  • Don’t know what’s going on in the greater organization (e.g. inadequate or ineffective communication)
  • Don’t understand what business they’re in (e.g. yes, this really happens!)
  • Haven’t fully bought-in to the current initiatives advanced by management (e.g.  the case for why these initiatives warrant special attention and support has been ineffective by management.)
  • Realize that customers/clients are being disadvantaged (e.g. the bill gets maximized, client value doesn’t.)
  • Don’t see their management defending the organization’s professional ideals (e.g. explicit or implicit)
  • Don’t feel connected to their colleagues (e.g. they may as well be strangers in the night)

…few will say that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization…even if their organization delivers sophisticated products or services…even if they employ ‘big-brained’ people who have advanced training….even if their individual specialists exude superior technical proficiency.

This may seem counter-intuitive and even painful to hear. But consider David Maister’s experience. David, now retired, was once the world’s leading authority on the management of professional services firms.  He observed, “I rarely meet individual professionals who believe their firm, as an institution, is built on such [professional] principles.”

Most people define an organization (white collar or not) as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers (technical stuff developed by really smart people) but by how they go about their business. This is outlined in great detail in Chapter Two of The Power of Professionalism. And make no mistake, how they go about their business is a by-product of their mind-sets.

In the end it’s about confidence and trust. So when I hear senior leaders say, especially in the face of great chasms of trust, that the word ‘professional’ describes their organization I realize we’ve still got a ways to go.