If money is your organization’s sole purpose for existing, see my latest article in Bellwether Magazine.
Status Quo—The Key Differentiator Between Managers and Leaders
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?
Adversity Trumped–Progressive Avoids Its Waterloo
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.
Breakthroughs Aren’t For The Faint of Heart
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
An Important Reminder From Jim Collins About ‘A’ Cultures
In The Power of Professionalism we advocated that there were three levels in assessing whether an organization had centered their culture on professional ideals. ‘A’ was the best, ‘B’ was OK, and ‘C’ was…well…out of the running. Almost without exception, it’s the dedication (and discipline) of the organization’s leaders that enable an ‘A’ culture to become that way.
It’s within an ‘A’ culture that people gather to do great work, to solve big problems, to (borrowing an over-used phrase) make a difference. Granted, these are not at the exclusion of self-interest….but it’s not their express purpose.
Consider this quote from Jim Collins and Morten Hansen’s wonderful new book Great By Choice
“The greatest leaders we’ve studied throughout all of our research cared as much about values as victory, as much about purpose as profit, as much about being useful as being successful.”
If one were able to concoct a secret sauce for an ‘A’ culture, the “great leaders” Collins alludes to would be the very first ingredient.
Getting Out Of Your Own Way
Mind-set #1 is about having a bias for results. Get results and you’ll be trusted. Simple. Naturally, people say they hold this mind-set…after all, that’s what they feel others expect them to say. But saying you’re committed and demonstrating it are two different things. It’s when one’s buttons get pushed, when one’s comfort zone gets invaded that you really find out whether the commitment is real or faux. Turning up the heat acts as the ultimate stress test…as you’ll soon out if you’re committed to really delivering results or not.
What happens when:
***the entrepreneur with a great new idea seriously questions whether they are the right person to bring the idea to fruition.
***the senior officer in the Fortune 500 realizes she’s about to hire someone smarter and perhaps more capable than she is.
***the managing partner who willingly steps aside to aid the ensuing merger with another firm.
Sometimes getting out of our own way is the very best thing we can do in bringing forth the best possible results. It may require that we put our ego aside or lose control to a third party. It may result in being relegated to the shadows, instead of the spotlight. It may mean taking a short term financial hit. It may just break our heart. Know in the end it’s always few who take this less-traveled road. They may not like it, but they do it anyway. After all, it’s who they are—namely professionals.