Professionals Don’t Trash Their Competition

Business requires we compete.  But most people intuitively sense that there’s a right way and a wrong way to compete.  One of the wrong ways is ‘going negative’. This is something that professionals know only too well.   Trashing your competition may provide a short term adrenalin rush, but long term goes over like a lead balloon.  People only want to be exposed to that type of rhetoric for so long, and soon after they’ll turn you off.  Worse yet, it makes you look petty.

People prefer to be for something as opposed to being against something….it generates more enthusiasm, more energy.  People want to know what your value proposition is…how you can help them…what you’re all about…why you’re better.  Trash your competition at your own risk.

Take the case of the PR firm that was hired by Facebook to “plant anti-Google stories in papers and blogs”.  This revelation was outlined in the Nov 29, 2011 cover story in Fortune regarding the future of social media and the fight between the industry’s two 800 pound gorillas.

Journalists soon discovered what the PR firm was up to.  This hurt the PR firm’s reputation and once again proves why white collar firms aren’t necessarily ‘professional’.  Facebook would have been better served to channel their energy into building a better product.  Instead, Facebook’s decision proved regretful and made the firm look sophomoric.

Compete?  Sure.  But don’t be tempted to take the low road.  Professionals compete to win in the marketplace—-not by ‘going negative’ on their competition.

Good Meeting? Bad Meeting? Look In The Mirror!

Have you ever been in a meeting when:

***the group’s enthusiasm gets squashed due to a few individuals negativity?

***the group gets stuck in the weeds

***constructive discussion turns into contention as people’s passion spills over

***the group’s energy gets drained upon the announcement of an unpopular decision

***apathy prevails when a less-popular colleague leads the meeting

***a normally rock-solid colleague uncharacteristically belly-flops on a vital presentation

Because negative energy feeds on itself, it’s easy to get sucked into a downward spiral in these types of situations.  Meetings of this sort are painful, often becoming the grist for Dilbert’s mill.  That’s why MS #6 (getting a hold of your emotions) is all-important here.

It’s almost guaranteed that, absent an intervention, the meeting will be a negative experience. For the professional, it’s recovery time. As easy as it might be to join the majority who enjoy whining about the meeting, the professional is unwilling to settle.  The professional asks themselves, “what can I do to help get this meeting back on track?” (consistent with MS #1…’having a bias for results’)

Thus, in responding to the situations above:

***the professional offers a contrarian point of view—one that offers a healthy dose of optimism

***the professional interjects a question or comment that gets the meeting re-focused.

***the professional points out that the meeting has become unproductive and asks the group, “Given  our situation, what do we need to do as professionals to get this meeting back on track?”

***the professional reminds the group of a similar situation years earlier—one in which people’s fears were never realized.

***the professional tactfully points out the group’s dysfunction, reminds them of the big picture, and challenges them to do better.

***the professional who draws the group’s focus to themselves—stalling for time—all the while enabling their flustered colleague to compose themselves and ultimately recover.

To be clear, the professional isn’t being a ‘yes man’, isn’t being pollyannish about issues of substance,  isn’t playing politics.  Rather, they are attempting to make the best out of a sometimes poor situation—in an objective, yet optimistic way. Professionals know that a good meeting—first and foremost–starts with them.

 

 

 

The Honest Broker–Wisdom From Seth Godin

Seth Godin (a wise man indeed) posted a piece this past Saturday warrants sharing as it compliments The Power of Professionalism so nicely.

I’ve taken the liberty of re-printing it here.  Enjoy.

The Honest Broker

It really is a choice, one or the other.

Either you happily recommend the best option for your customer, or you give preference to your own items first.

Either you believe in what you sell, or you don’t.

Either you treat your best partners better, or you treat everyone the same.

Either you shade the truth when it’s painful to do otherwise, or you consistently share what’s important.

Either you always keep your promises or you don’t.

Either you give me the best price the first time, or you make me jump through hoops to get there.

Earning the position of the honest broker is time-consuming and expensive. Losing it takes just a moment.

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.