The Chicken Coop

I recently had occasion to spend some time with Ken Behring.  Ken is an American success story— having transcended his humble beginnings in Wisconsin to become one of the nation’s wealthiest men.    The vast majority of Ken’s wealth was generated from real estate development, although he started out in Wisconsin (in large part) as a car dealer.

Ken’s public profile increased dramatically after he became majority owner of the Seattle Seahawks—perhaps that’s how you know of him.  Behring has since sold the team and has found a new passion—philanthropy. His philanthropic work is both impressive and inspiring.

Ken’s philanthropy has been enabled by his impressive business success. That success (no surprise) is a by-product of hard work and determination.

Ken tells of the time many years ago, while in his twenties, he needed an office for his first car dealership.  Low on resources, he got creative.  He decided to buy a farmer’s chicken coop and renovate it.  Yes, you heard right—his first office was a renovated chicken coop.

The chicken coop stunk to high heaven! Behring spent days scraping caked manure from every nook-and-cranny of the chicken coop.  It wasn’t a pretty sight.  The clean-up was a horrible job—one Ken later said he’d never do for anyone else.  Endless coats of paint, some linoleum on the floor, a few electrical fixtures and voila’ …a new office is revealed.

What drove him, Ken noted, was “the vision of what the coop would become”.   Of course, the coop was a means to an end.  By age 27 Ken had a million dollars in assets—an especially impressive feat in 1955.

Ken was all about results (mind-set #1).  When a chicken coop was called for…he got it done.

The thing that often separates us getting the result we desire are chicken coops—those things that are needful but distasteful.  What are your chicken coops?  Hiring a marketing specialist because you’ve proven you’re no good at it? Going the extra mile to make your new product release ‘just so’?  Forging a  business relationship with someone you dislike (but trust) whose talents are especially important to your company’s mission?

They’re ‘out there’—chicken coops that is!   The question is—will you built ‘em?

Higher-Education Embracing The Power of Professionalism

We’ve been pleasantly surprised by the reaction to The Power of Professionalism within higher-education.  We’re aware of several business schools/professors who are using the book in their curriculum. We suspect there are others, but we’re simply unaware.  For those of you within higher-education that are using the book that I haven’t yet spoken to, please drop me a line–I’d love to hear from you.  For those within higher-education who would like to learn more, I’d love to hear from you too.

Fixing Our Broken Government–Optimism To Mitigate An Otherwise Sobering 4th

Earlier today I received an e-mail from Geoff Smart, Chairman and CEO of ghSMART & Company.  Geoff’s firm is a renowned management assessment firm for CEO’s and investors.  His wonderful book Who is a classic on hiring ‘A’ players—it became a NY Times best seller.    

Geoff was writing to announce his new book Leadocracy.  It was a pleasant surprise.  The book was written, in part, because of Geoff’s hope (in some small way) of ‘fixing’ our broken government.

I couldn’t help but think back to my own book The Power of Professionalism (which Geoff happened to have endorsed) which had as a sub-plot getting our country back on track.  In other words, Geoff and I shared a similar concern about the health of the country and had dedicated significant aspects of an otherwise traditional business book to the nation’s health.

Yes folks, the United States has some serious issues—and they’re pretty sobering. On the verge of July 4th, my hopes are still high for the nation.

The answer, in part, is to expect elected officials to be professionals who happen to be politicians, not professional politicians.

Happy 4th everyone!

 

Expert ≠ Professional

Want to stir people up?  Get them talking about the group projects they worked on (or are working on) while in business school!  You’ll likely hear comments like:

***”Boy oh boy, that Judy was a piece of work! She never ever carried her portion of the load.”

***”I got so sick of Tony, he was so full of himself.”

***”Once, just once, I wish Audrey would have something of substance to share.”

There are lots of reasons for the frustration (e.g. lack of established processes, misunderstandings, inexperience, conflicting cultural norms, etc) but most of the comments you’ll likely hear about center on faulty interpersonal dynamics.

Take, for instance, the marketing project that a fellow student (let’s call him John) hijacked when I was in grad school.  Turns out, John was an expert marketer.  Plus, he was an impressive guy.  Trouble was, he hijacked the project.  There were five people on the team, but practically speaking, there was only one brain.  And there was only one way—John’s.

John didn’t really learn anything, he merely executed what he already knew.  The only thing the four others on the so-called team got was a big dose of frustration—as their potential learning experience had been wasted.

Oh sure, the project received kudo’s from the professor (who was unaware of what had transpired). And , of course, John  received the acclaim he had hoped for.  Plus, every member of the group received impressive grades.  Still, this begs the question, “in this instance did John (the expert) conduct himself as a profession would?”   (to ensure clarity and intent, note that I’m not asking if John was unprofessional.)

For my money, the answer is no—John didn’t conduct himself as a professional would.  Despite the appearance of a positive outcome for the project, it was really a failure.  No one really learned anything—which, after all, was the purpose of the exercise.  And the project wasn’t intended to act as a platform for any one individual’s ego.

John’s colleagues felt that John was out for John.  From that point forward, they distrusted him.  This isn’t surprising as John had violated four mind-sets (#’s 1, 2, 6 and 7).

As we advocate in The Power of Professionalism (page 41) technical competence is important.  But technical competence, even when demonstrated by someone considered ‘expert’, doesn’t automatically equate to ‘professional’.   That’s just as true in the workplace as it is in business school study groups.

Professionalize Teaching ?—A Duke University Senior Speaks Out

‘We must become more professional’ is a mantra I regularly hear amongst both the for-profit and non-profit sectors. For instance, many have argued that management should have the same types of standardized professional requirements that law does.  Whether you agree or not isn’t the point.  Rather, it’s symptomatic of some level of dissatisfaction of the profession itself.

Recently in the Contra Costa Times another such article “Educating Under Oath”, surfaced. It’s about teachers–written by Matthew Straus, a Duke University senior. Check it out.  And notice the thinking that is foundational to the oath Straus proposes teachers take.  To me, it’s clear that Straus holds several of the mind-sets we write about in The Power of Professionalism.  Am I surprised?  Not at all!

Ain’t Maturity Grand?

Senior citizens may cringe when being referred to as mature, but hopefully the rest of us will take it as a compliment rather than a slight.  I don’t know about you, but I love dealing with people who are able to:

***receive constructive feedback without being defensive.

***be genuinely happy for someone who may not be their favorite.

***learn through others experience.

***say “I was wrong”.

***speak of accomplishments in ‘we’ terms, not ‘me’ terms.

These are signs of maturity—the good kind!  They’re also signs that you’re dealing with a professional.

 

Applying The Mind-Sets To Tough Meetings

Got a tough meeting coming up—one in which involves critical problem-solving, or one in which emotions may run high?  If you’re like me, you’ll need all the help you can get.  Here’s a tip.

Assuming you’re dealing with a group that’s familiar with the seven mind-sets, at the beginning of the meeting ask the group two questions:

*** “Which mind-set is most critical in ensuring we achieve our desired outcome?”

*** “Which mind-set (or its absence) is most likely to trip us up?”

If the two questions are properly facilitated, a lively discussion will ensue.  Ultimately the group will settle on a mind-set that pretty much fits the bill for each question.  Post the questions and answers on a white board or on a flip chart where they can be seen over the course of the meeting.  Don’t assume everyone will agree with the mind-set that ultimately gets chosen for the two questions.  In the end, it doesn’t matter.

This brief exercise (which should probably take less than five minutes) will have accomplished three important things:

1)      By default, it provides an invaluable review of each of the seven mind-sets…so in the meeting the mind-sets become top-of-mind.  It informally nudges people to be their ‘best-self’ in an atmosphere that may well prove to be highly-charged.

2)      It provides a great prevention that materially aids in keeping the meeting on-track.  The group will naturally circle back to the two questions (and corresponding answers) should the meeting tend to get off-track.

3)       It reinforces a laser-like focus on the desired outcome.  Of course the meeting’s desired outcome is—by definition—a first-cousin to mind-set #1 (having a bias for results).  Mind-set #1 was chosen to be number one amongst all the mind-sets for a reason…namely, that when people hold this mind-set, a lot of good things naturally follow.

I’m confident that this approach, if well executed, can help you.  The point isn’t what mind-set gets chosen in conjunction with the two questions.  The point is that this process appeals to people’s ‘best-self’ —largely because of their desire to ‘show up’ as a professional would.

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.