Status Quo–Part Three

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.

 

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.

Sniffing Out BS–Help For Your Meetings

Steve Jobs had what others called a ‘reality distortion field’.  In other words, there were times in which Jobs didn’t have a good grasp on reality. He was a showman that  believed his own stories—even ones that were without merit. Complicating the situation, Jobs would be prone to exaggerate, misrepresent facts, manipulate resources to his benefit—things that didn’t engender trust. (Note: there were other times in which Jobs used his reality distortion field to push people to do things that were thought to be impossible—arguably a good thing.)

People wrote this off to “Steve just being Steve.”  Jobs was far more prone to do this than most of us.  Yet, there were times when Steve’s inability to see reality hurt his  organization’s ability to do great work.  Each of us, in varying degrees, do this too…believing our own stories. Let’s get real here…some of our stories just don’t reflect reality.  And when our inability to be objective goes unchallenged it retards our organization’s ability to do great work.

General Richard Myers, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff knew this. While Chairman, General Myers introduced a protocol for the meetings held by the Joint Chiefs. The protocol was intended to sniff out (what they considered to be) someones ‘BS’. ‘BS’ was considered to be people’s stories that didn’t reflect reality, comments that bordered on wishful thinking, or diatribes that bordered on self-delusional grandeur. The Joint Chiefs committed themselves to do great work–and that meant calling out people on their ‘stuff’.

General Myers, a contributor to The Power of Professionalism, told me the protocol worked great for them. That’s been my experience too. Calling people out on their ‘stuff’ in some organizations can initially feel like it’s personal. However, over time people get beyond that.  The reason is simple—the focus is on the work, not the person.

Meeting protocols (a meeting norm) produce better meetings…which is condusive to doing great work.  Today’s blog identifies one such norm. Simply put…it’s a pre-meeting agreement that makes it safer for people to speak up on a sensitive topic. You can compliment this meeting norm by having attendees throw a soft-sided object (or equivalent) at a predetermined location (or even a person) when a meeting norm is violated.  This introduces a lighter side to an otherwise touchy situation. There’s a gazillion ways to compliment a meeting norm in this manner.

To do great work, you’ve got to be objective.  You’ve got to see the world as it is–not how we want it to be. Using this type of meeting protocol helps keep everyone honest…keeps people on track…and gives you the best chance to do great work.

 

 

.

 

Real Artists Ship

Today’s post was inspired by a colleague friend of mine–Sally Helgesen–a gifted author and management consultant.

Sally was reminiscing that her favorite Steve Jobs quote was “ Real Artists Ship”.   I can’t help but relate this quote to Mind-Set #1–Professionals Have A Bias For Results.

By ‘ship’, Jobs means produce…get your stuff to market….get people to try your stuff, weigh-in on it…all the while taking a risk.  Of course, your stuff may well be a product, but also could be a service–doesn’t matter.

Big ideas are fine…partially-designed  products on a drawing board may temporarily inspire…but until you ‘ship’, it’s all theory.  Results begin with ‘shipping’.

Do it and you’ll show the world why you matter–just as Jobs did!