Richard Kovacevich, the retired chairman of the board of directors
and former CEO of Wells Fargo (who was also an avid athlete) , once noted that, “You learn very quickly playing sports that it’s all about team. It’s the best five players that win the basketball game, not the five best players.”
The University of Kentucky certainly demonstrated that this evening–winning yet another NCAA national championship. Congratulations to the Wildcats and coach Calipari.
A great organization is dependent on great people. Yet, even someone who is ‘great’ may not necessarily be right for your organization. Jim Collins reminds us the right people:
***fit in with the company’s core values
***don’t need to be tightly managed
***understand that they do not have ‘jobs’, they have responsibilities
***fulfill their commitments
***are passionate about the company and its work
***display “window and mirror” maturity (e.g. they shine a light on others while taking little credit themselves)
This is a great summary–whether you’re hiring or evaluating your organization. For many of you, this is a reminder–hopefully a helpful one.
For those of you familiar with The Power of Professionalism you’ll notice a gazillion correlations with the seven mind-sets amongst Jim’s list. Again, that’s not surprising–after all, the book is all about personal leadership!
Allow me to spread a bit of wisdom from Seth Godin:
“Whenever you can, work with people who take it personally.”
For those of you who have read The Power of Professionalism, you know why.
Recently I mentioned that if there’s ever any confusion as to who the leaders are and who the managers are in your organization—just watch how they treat the status quo. Managers tend to make the status quo more efficient while leaders tend to make a new status quo.
Here’s a few closing thoughts on status quo…lest there’s any confusion from my first two posts on the subject last week:
***the status quo, per se, may not always be a bad thing—especially for a successful company who is dominating their niche. Growth (an allure for most leaders) for growth’s sake may not prove to be a smart move. Be aware of what Jim Collins refers to as the undisciplined pursuit of more. What’s undisciplined? 1) Taking action inconsistent with your core values. 2) Discontinuous leaps into arenas for which you have no burning passion. 3) Launching into activities that do not fit with your economic or resource engine. 4) Investing heavily in new arenas where you cannot attain distinctive capability. The complete list is contained on page 55 of Collin’s 2009 book How The Mighty Fall.
***consistent with the previous item—sometimes the best decisions turn out to be those so-called opportunities you elect not to pursue. Instead you chose to focus on those things you believe you can do exceptionally well. For instance when Steve Jobs returned to Apple as CEO he killed any project that did not fit into one of four categories he decreed as company priorities. The categories were those that Jobs believed Apple could become a leader in. He created a new status quo—in that Apple would no longer chase growth in areas where they had little chance of differentiating themselves.
***a new status quos (one with BIG impact) isn’t a one-and –done type of thing. The new status quo of ‘everyone an innovator’ that was introduced at Whirlpool in 1999 for example, took time before it was fully integrated and bore fruit. Introducing another major initiative during that time would have created havoc. It was only after the ‘innovator’ status quo was mature could Whirlpool consider introducing the next one.
***a good manager and a good leader can both introduce change—the difference being in the degree of impact. Change for the manager is typically more incremental in nature, for the leader it’s more analogous to a breakthrough (because it creates a new status quo…which typically requires a higher level of thinking). Remember when we say manager or leader, we’re not referring to someone’s title. Rather, we’re looking at their impact. There are a lot of wonderful leaders out there who have ‘manager’ embedded in their title.
***making the status quo more efficient (what managers do) is analogous to “doing your job really well”. Creating a new status quo (what leaders do) speaks to a higher purpose, looking at the bigger picture, and creating even more “greater good”. The level of thinking between the two is vastly different.
***we don’t mean to suggest that all change associated with the status quo is good. Sometimes the proposed change backfires (because it’s fundamentally a bad idea) or muddies the water (because of bad timing—i.e. there’s already too much churn in the organization) or becomes a distraction (a good idea that provides short-term benefit but drains focus, energy, and resources away from an initiative that’s expected to provide a bigger long-term benefit).
Hope these thoughts help.
If money is your organization’s sole purpose for existing, see my latest article in Bellwether Magazine.
In yesterday’s post we noted that managers tend to focus on making the status quo more efficient. In other words, whatever changes they make typically are more tactical in nature. These types of folks tend to act as custodians. The expectations of a ‘caretaker executive’, for example, is to keep things running, minimize risk, and basically not screw things up.
This doesn’t suggest that these types of individuals don’t demonstrate leadership—because they do. For instance, a manager who defends a company value (rarely a fun experience) is performing an especially important aspect of their responsibilities. However, an isolated act of leadership doesn’t make one ‘Lincoln-esque’. Regardless of whatever lofty title the ‘caretaker executive’ was given, their basic role is managerial in nature.
Likewise, even the most transformative leader typically has traditional ‘management’ responsibilities. For example, bringing in the operating budget five percent below target is a short term imperative for the director who is accustomed to shaking things up. Yet even though leaders have responsibility for comparatively pedestrian tasks such as managing budgets, their larger contribution is changing the unproductive aspects of the status quo. That means forging new policies, breeding expectations for better processes, revitalizing the culture—all in the name of improving results.
In other words, leaders manage, and managers lead. What makes them one or the other is determined by the per ponderous of what they do—not by an envious title or by the power they hold. How they impact the status quo becomes the acid test in determining whether they’re a manager or a leader.
There is nothing so obvious as the manager (labeled as such through their decreed title) who leads effectively by thoughtfully and stridently advancing an agenda that keeps the organization ahead of the curve in a time of dynamic change. Likewise, there’s nothing more maddening than the leader (that adjective being implicit with a lofty title) who fiddles (i.e. manages) while Rome burns.
If there’s ever any confusion as to who the leaders are and who the managers are —just watch how they treat the status quo.
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?
In November 1988 California voters passed Proposition 103 which mandated sweeping reforms within the insurance industry. In effect, it meant 20% reductions in rates and significant refunds were in store for policy-holders. The Proposition’s passage was California’s voters way of punishing an industry they were fed up with.
Progressive Insurance, which at the time ranked #13 in the American private-passenger auto-insurance market, had a quarter of its business in California. The Proposition’s passage took a big hit on Progressive.
After the initial shock, CEO Peter Lewis called his staff together and challenged them to built a better company. What resulted was nothing short of remarkable. Progressive instituted new innovative claims service with roving claims adjusters that work from a fleet of vans and SUV’s which could be immediately dispatched to policy-holders homes or even the scene of an accident. By 1995 80 % of the time Progressive adjusters were issuing claim checks within 24 hours of an accident. This improvement was one of many.
By 2002 Progressive’s industry ranking had risen to #4. Lewis later called Proposition 103 “the best thing that ever happened to this company”.
It would have been easy for Lewis and his people to whine about life not being fair. They didn’t. Instead they saw it as an opportunity. It proved to be just that. They were committed to results (MS #1) and knew things would only get better when they did (MS#3). It’s a remarkable story that Jim Collins memorializes in Great By Choice (page 168).
It’s a life’s lesson for all of us.
Robert Shiller, a Yale economist, is probably best known for having written Irrational Exuberance—the 2004 book that was prescient in foretelling the nation’s debilitating housing crisis. He attributes the approach he took in his book to advice his father had given him—namely to “pursue things that sound [and feel] right to you”.
Shiller notes in Fortune (Dec 12, 2011) , “I said in the preface I was worried that the boom in home prices might collapse,bring on bankruptcy in both business and households, and lead to a world recession. I remember thinking that this sounds kind of flaky–nobody else is saying this. I can’t prove it, this could be embarrassing. But I learned from my father not to care what other people think. This was my book, and I believed this, so I just said it.”
I really relate to Shiller…having taken on some sacred cows myself in The Power of Professionalism.
Like Shiller, there are aspects of The Power of Professionalism that I can’t prove. And, like Shiller, no one in (or outside) of my field was advocating what I was. Yes, I believed…so, like Shiller, I just said what I had to say. It felt right to me.
Turns out, a lot of people (many experts in my field) believed in the ideas that I was advancing. That’s really validating; but also can lend itself to an inflated ego (believing one’s press clippings usually proves self-defeating). The social acclaim and ego rush of being right (when that’s the case) isn’t the point.
What is the point is how your point-of-view helps people or things that are bigger than you. It’s all about Mind-Set #2 (being a part of something bigger than yourself).
Got an idea or point-of-view that you think warrants advancing? First, do your homework. Think deeply about it. Scrutinize it from every angle.Tear it apart. Challenge your assumptions. Then make ‘little bets‘ (see the book of the same name by my friend Peter Sims) …test the premise out with friends, with adversaries…write about it. Soon enough you’ll know whether or not you’re on to something.
You’ll know it’s right when it sounds and feels right to you. At that point, if you’ve still got something to say, go ahead….say it!
Of all the world-class contributors to The Power of Professionalism, Kathy Ireland is the person I’m most frequently asked about. This post is a glimpse into Kathy the business mogul.
As the ‘presenter’ of Kathy Ireland at a prestigious awards ceremony in Nov 2011 (Kathy was the recipient of the John F Kennedy Laureate award) I stated that Kathy was as “intelligent as she was beautiful”.
The recent article on Kathy that appeared in the Feb 13, 2012 issue of Forbes reinforces that point.
Here’s the article that appeared in Forbes.
Here’s the video that compliments the article.
Enjoy.