Enjoy Retirement Tony

Earlier today, Tony La Russa announced his retirement–this after winning the World Series last week in dramatic fashion. He’s going out on top. I’m thrilled for him.

La Russa, who wrote the Foreword for The Power of Professionalism, had a brilliant career and undoubtedly will be a first ballot entrant into baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Cardinals star pitcher Chris Carpenter said of Tony, “I’m not sure there are a lot of people that can match the preparation, the dedication and the ability to put it all together.”

Carpenter is ‘spot on’.  In recruiting big name contributors (such as Tony) for The Power of Professionalism I had one singular criteria–that the individual had to emulate what I was writing about in the book. Tony does….he’s such a pro.

La Russa leaves a lasting legacy. Managers will forever model not only what he did but how he did it. Baseball was lucky to have him.

Enjoy your retirement Tony.

 

 

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!

Where’s The Professionals When You Most Need Them?

Sad, but not surprising, news—Americans’ distrust of government is at its highest level ever. 89% say they distrust government to do the right thing. 84% believe the country is on the wrong track.  We’re in uncharted waters here.

A democracy depends on trust.  Without it the country suffers in a big way–just as it is now.

The answer?  Professionals who happen to be politicians…not professional politicians.

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.

Loose Threads

Resisting the urge to pull on a loose thread can be tough for some of us. Lest you think today’s post is about fabric, it isn’t. Loose threads are interpersonal teases.

They occur in meetings when someone:

  • makes an innocent error on an inconsequential fact
  • pauses for a moment to gather their train-of-thought
  • says something provocative in a well-intended attempt to challenge people’s thinking

What do you do when this occurs? Pull on the thread or leave well-enough alone? Some pull on the thread—interrupting the speaker, asking an inappropriate question, filling a void in the meeting with our own ‘stuff’, or taking the conversation in an unhelpful direction. We tell ourselves we’re being helpful…

…but closer to the truth is we’ve been unable to resist having the last word or getting in our two cents. In other words, it’s about us—often a not-so-veiled attempt to show how smart or important we are.

In meetings this can be death—especially for the inexperienced or ineffective leader/presenter. How many times have we all seen meetings completely unravel because one or more attendees couldn’t resist the urge to pull on a loose thread or two? This is not only frustrating, but expensive too.

Professionals resist the urge to pull on loose threads, largely because they:

  • quickly turn from one into eight (people pile on)
  • knock the leader/speaker off their train-of-thought
  • are a catalyst in derailing a meeting’s momentum
  • are a sign of disrespect

Professionals aspire to master their emotions—especially when it comes to pulling on loose threads.

Changing Your Tune

“Cheryl is the best project manager we have—her integrity is beyond reproach.”  “Suzanne is one of the finest people you’d ever want to work with—she’s simply a star.”
“Charlie was my best boss ever—fair-minded, respectful, insightful–he’s the real deal.”

The people expressing their admiration for these people based their views on years of personal experience working with them. But isn’t it funny how we’re prone to change our tune when things don’t quite go our way:

  • You change your tune about Cheryl after she reassigns you to a lower-profile project.
  • You change your tune about Suzanne after she respectfully, but vehemently, disagrees with you in front of the boss on a key strategic issue.
  • You change your tune about Charlie after he doesn’t hire you for a job you desperately sought.

If these people were good before, they should be good after. Your view shouldn’t change just because an isolated situation doesn’t go your way. Changing your tune in such circumstances makes you look petty…makes you look small…puts you fifty yards south of showing up as a professional would.

When Sacrifice Isn’t

A wide receiver throws a great block, springing his running back teammate around the corner for a 15 yard gain. The announcer in the booth (a former wide receiver himself) sings the wide-out’s praises–finally paying him the ultimate compliment by commending him for how he ‘sacrificed himself’.

Huh?  Last time I checked football was a team sport.  Suggesting that the wide receiver (a ‘skill’ player) was ‘sacrificing himself’ by performing a skill with less prestige (blocking)…or by suggesting that he did it begrudgingly (because he dislikes it)…or by suggesting it’s especially admirable because it’s out of his comfort zone is myopic. It’s a team sport. People are expected to do what’s required to achieve the desired result. He’s not sacrificing himself, he’s attempting to help his team win!

I’ve noticed that managers are sometimes like the announcer…they think that when one of their ‘skill players’ performs a ‘lesser skill’ (something ‘beneath them’) they consider the ‘skill player’ to be making a sacrifice. Regretfully, these managers haven’t caught the vision of mind-set #2 – being a part of something bigger than yourself.

Consider:

  • the busy rainmaker at the law firm who takes their precious time and shares their considerable influence to open an important door for a colleague.
  • the mechanical foreman who takes 20 minutes out their day to provide encouragement and technical advice to a second-year apprentice who has run into a particularly vexing problem.
  • the theme park GM who– one day a month–works ‘the front lines’.
  • the Marketing VP who willingly gives up 5% of their departmental budget to R&D as a result of an unexpected new research breakthrough.

Neither the rainmaker, the foreman, the GM, nor the VP, consider themselves to be ‘sacrificing’. They, like the wide-receiver, realize they’re a part of something bigger than themselves. They’re a part of a team – they do what is required for the team to succeed.

People on winning teams constantly do things that may be out of the norm or that stretches them but they are rarely seen as a ‘sacrifice’. It’s just not how they see things.

Should I Say What I Know?

That’s a question that some of us constantly ask ourselves.

Most of us wouldn’t:

  • tell our friends how the new blockbuster movie ends.
  • speak up in a meeting on an arcane point if we believed doing so would derail the meeting.
  • share an innocent, but little-known, fact about a colleague that, when revealed, might be used against them.

Sometimes knowing when (and when not) to speak up is a matter of judgment. In other instances, it’s a matter of character. Either way, the fact that we’re asking ourselves the question as to whether to speak up or not is evidence that we should tread carefully.

I once had a manager who always ran in the right circles.  He hung out with the ‘big dogs’—the ‘A’ list crowd. He was always “in the know”.  And he couldn’t wait to demonstrate that he was “in the know”.  Initially, it was just awkward…the information he’d tell me about.  I initially suspected he was revealing information he shouldn’t.  After awhile it was obvious that was exactly what he was doing. It seemed he just couldn’t help himself—revealing confidences that is.

It’s really tempting to be ‘in the know’….tempting to say what we know. In most business cultures,  the more information we possess, the greater our standing in the eyes of others. For some being ‘in the know’ is a (self) validation of one’s own self-importance.  Being ‘in the know’ can be intoxicating, because with knowledge comes a form of power–perceived or otherwise.

It also means that someone has taken us into their confidence…they’ve extended trust. That’s the trouble…my manager was violating confidences.  He had broken the trust that had been extended to him.

When this happens it’s typical:

  • for people to share only the information that’s absolutely essential with the offender (especially if that person is higher up in the food chain than we are).
  • that the offender develops a reputation for having ‘loose lips’ …which translates to a blemish on their character – eventually undermining their own effectiveness.
  • for the offender to lose the respect of others – the polar opposite of the enhanced ‘standing’ they may have originally hoped for.

So when you’re tempted to say what you know…remember, discretion is the better part of valor.

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.