Leaders, new and old, sometimes lose sight of the most fundamental tenets of leadership. Here’s a reminder…
I frequently tell executives that leadership – its concepts, theory, and core applications – haven’t changed in a millennium. Some our demographics may have changed, forcing us to use alternative applications of those concepts, but the basic concepts and theory remain.
So, why don’t we “just do it?” Sometimes we aren’t motivated; sometimes the “time” just doesn’t seem right. Maybe we simply forgot some of the basics… hence this article.
I use the following rules for both new managers/leaders, as well as for any level of leadership when taking on a new role – some good things to not forget. So, here goes…
Kevin’s Survival Kit for New Managers — 5 Irrefutable Laws
Never delay or abrogate a decision that must be made. Make it and move on. You may have to immediately make another decision; this doesn’t mean your first one was wrong, merely that your second one had the benefit of additional knowledge.
If you want something specific done, say so specifically, using clear, plain language. Employees, generally, have some difficulty doing their basic jobs; adding “mind-reading” to their description is just plain unfair.
If you always answer employee’s every question, you’ll forever be answering employees’ every question. Questions are teaching moments — don’t rob employees of the opportunity.
Make your expectations clear, then back up a bit and give employees room to do their job. That doesn’t mean “never look back;” to inspect what you expect isn’t micro-management, it’s just good-management.
Employees need their managers to be leaders; they don’t need a shoulder, a buddy, a sympatico, or a commiserator. If you want a friend, buy a dog.
Please print these out, laminate, and put in your top desk drawer…
..and a hundred other pithy, nonsensical phrases and statements that clutter our day.
None more ridiculous and colossally undefined, however, as my personal favorite, and one I hear frequently as a consultant to senior leadership:
Take us to the next level.
What??
What level??
How do you/we know what’s next??
In the memorable words of Samuel Gompers (early union guy), when asked what worker’s really wanted, he replied, more. Is that all we’re talking about here? More?
I don’t get this “next level” stuff.
If we start with strategy, and define strategy as the purposeful, planned, vision of our future, and we attempt to create a working plan to achieve that future state… what, then is “the next level” in that context?
I’ve known businesses that successfully and substantially improved their quality of earnings while reducing or flattening revenue growth. Is that “next level?”
I’ve known CEOs who were incredibly intelligent, capable of personally developing, creating, and driving toward a purposeful strategy far different than the organization’s current direction and comfort. Is that the “next level?
Here’s a thought… how about we stick to block-and-tackling, even when it involves strategy and long-term change. We aren’t seeking a next level, we’re driving toward the direction, successes and results that we pre-determined through visionary strategy and on-the-ground leadership.
Now, if we weren’t doing any of that stuff before — maybe it is the “next level.”
I currently coach a couple of Human Resources professionals, both at the Director-level. Interestingly, they both asked me, in a span of two weeks and independent of each other, how to really grow and succeed in HR; how to become a real “player” in the business, to command respect, and to develop the credibility necessary to make real-life strategic contributions.
Of course, I had comments — I never promise that what works for me will work for you; only that these DID work for someone… me.
1. Read voraciously. Understand the concepts and philosophy along with the application. Management and leadership theory are necessary foundations — not so you can spout them and sound all mensa-like, but so you can use credible theory when developing your own method of application.
2. Take responsibilities others don’t want, or aren’t doing well. I’m not talking about bush-league stuff like parties and picnics, either. I’m talking about a broken purchasing effort, an underperforming quality or regulatory shop, or something similar. Relevance to HR isn’t the key — relevance to business is.
3. Regularly exceed authority. Forgiveness IS much easier than permission. Many CEOs may not want to see/hear this, but prudent, well thought pushing on your limits of authority allow that authority to grow. It also creates an added base of credibility, as you’ve survived the heat that comes from deciding “outside the box.”
4. Decide, if true, that only the top job will work. Then don’t accept the #2 role for anyone, regardless of size or paycheck. Takes a degree of personal fortitude, and untoward personal confidence, but it pays off. The #2 person is the tactician, not the visionary.
5. Put on boots and jeans, and spend real time “in the business;” learning how knobs are twisted, metal is melted, and trucks are driven. Literally work shifts for weeks sometimes to learn the intracacies of the biz. Get smart on how things work around here.
6. No templates at all. Ever. Develop everything custom for the company you are with. Read, get general ideas, but stop short of using someone else’s compensation plan, bonus effort, human capital plan, or related document to craft yours. Be unique; that’s what your organziation is paying for.
7. Underpromise, overdeliver. Always. Don’t get caught up in saying “yes” so much that you look like one of those Tiger Woods bobble-head dolls in the back window. Say “no” when you need to, so existing commitments are not compromised. Do what you say you will.
And the most important piece — be prepared at all times for plain old “luck.” As in golf, so with a career: Take luck over skill; it’s more frequent and usually more dependable. Particularly if you prepare for that luck in advance.
First, understand that “Talent Management” is not some vague concept, but quite simply:
(1) Identifying, sourcing & recruiting talent,
(2) Developing and motivating talent, and
(3) Retaining talent.
It stands to reason that the CEO MUST be pivotal in any successful talent management strategy. I recently surveyed my current and past clients on this specific topic, and “Talent Management,” as described above, is far and away their number one concern moving forward. Above markets, pricing pressures, and even recent legislation challenges.
Specifically:
CEOs are crucial in the identification & recruitment phase; they must establish what skills, attributes and competencies are necessary for developing future key players. That initial
definition – the foundation – must come from the very top. This doesn’t mean in a vacuum, with no input from anyone; it does, however, mean no delegation allowed.
A CEO’s role is also integral to motivating and developing that talent. Once you find a “keeper,” effective skill development (to match your organizational needs) and deployment (right job, right person) are keys to success. Identify the key employee, then pinpoint what skills and behavior that employee needs to lead tomorrow, perhaps even in a different functional area. Then work on “the gap.”
Assuming the hiring process was successful, it’s too arduous and resource-intensive to repeat, hence the CEOs essential input into retention. Key players – those most focused on in talent management – need to know they have a purpose beyond departmental or shorter-range goals. The CEO is essential for that understanding. An effective CEO can retain talent even in the face of lackluster direct management.
In short, the CEO’s role is becoming more defined today as “principally” talent management — along with a lot of other burining priorities. It’s no longer a sideline job. Done correctly, however, it can expand the CEO’s reach, and help distribute that ever-growing list of “must-do” things falling on your shoulders.
Trigger warning: This post may offend. Tough; this blog is “The Brazen Leader,” not “The Milquetoast Leader.” Get over it…
He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.
–Brigham Young
Being offended is a choice everyone makes. Unintentional offense is taken, not given. Even intentional offense must be internalized and accepted by the offended.
Anyone has the right to be offended, about just about anything it seems these days. Their right to be offended does not necessarily extend to my changing behavior. If someone is offended at inoffensive wording, they are the one with the problem, not me. There may be some very unique exceptions around unlawful harassment in employment (and even those are not without specific limitations), but those exceptions do not extend to all language all the time. You have the right to say that anything and everything offends you, I have the right to consider if that means anything to me. A pas de deux. Even the EEOC considers the context of the behavior when determining harassment.
Many diversity experts will tell you “intent doesn’t matter.” Yeah, well, I’m a people expert; of course intent matters.
People today say, “I’m offended” as if they are wielding some mythical sword, demanding apologies and causing all to immediately alter the alleged offense or face a run-through with the blade. We have, as a society, lost our collective ability to say “whatever,” and move on. Now, we feel like we have the power to force people to change from saying anything that we take offense to, merely because we take offense.
We need safe spaces and want “trigger warnings.” Full-scale bitching about “microaggressions” and “mansplaining;” we create lists of words to be banned. Not only that, we frequently expect heads to roll or companies to be boycotted. Journalists and commentators are fired. Speakers voices are openly squelched. Corporate and political leaders are forced out. Hell, there’s practically a cottage industry of people that take offense for people who don’t take offense. We do a disservice by playing along.
Today, pronouns–pronouns–are considered offensive by many. Let that sink in for a minute. Under no circumstances, short of federal imprisonment, will I stop using them, so that means I offend someone?? Gosh, I hope I survive. No, it simply means someone takes offense. Not the same thing. Yes, it does matter.
And I’m sorry, but those folks who are always offended have a problem, and I wish them well. But their problem isn’t with me, it’s with themselves. Grow up, get therapy, meditate… whatever floats your boat.
Personal preferences do not mandate reactionary behavior. Not that we shouldn’t attempt to maintain harmony, but you don’t get to mandate my reaction to your perceived slights. A favorite quote of mine, for a variety of reasons, has been attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes (among others): “Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins.” I’ll paraphrase that, and make it relevant to this discussion–“Your right to be offended ends where my responsibility to change begins.”
Warning: Fairly lengthy article, something of a rant, and I’m going to say “bullshit” quite a few times. Buckle up, buttercup…
In Guy Kawasaki’s book, Reality Check, he claims “Silicon Valley is a meritocracy like nowhere else.” Bullshit. Look at the lack of women, minorities, over-40. If it’s a meritocracy, then explain statistically impossible under-representation. Tech companies aren’t examples, they’re poster-children for how not to “do” diversity.
Diversity. Inclusion. As important as these words are, Tech just doesn’t get it. Even while company leaders tout the need to increase diversity for both business and social justice reasons and trip over each other trying to hire the biggest, baddest diversity guru, the better roles and big bucks are reserved for keepers of the bro culture. Considering that most of the industry is nearly evangelical about progressive change, it’s downright hypocritical.
Tech (Silicon Valley and other) needs to stop with the PR eyewash and public pronouncements of “We’ll do better, starting now!” It’s bullshit, and it’s growing tiresome. And it can’t simply be accidental or even anecdotal anymore; no metric-driven problem that mattered would be allowed to go on this long in the measure-everything world of technology, particularly that in the investor-or-VC-backed space.
Let’s start with some representative facts:
The U.S. population is approximately 51% female; Silicon Valley employs just 20% of women in technical positions.
African Americans make up 13.2% of the U.S. population; Silicon Valley employs less than 4% African Americans in technical positions.
Hispanics make up 17% of the U.S. population; Silicon Valley employs just over 4% Hispanics in technical positions.
Asians make up just over 6% of the U.S. population; Silicon Valley employs almost 40% Asians in technical positions.
Hispanics and African-Americans constitute a combined 14 percent of computer science and engineering graduates—but only 5 percent of the tech workforce.
Top universities turn out black and Hispanic computer science and computer engineering graduates at twice the rate the leading tech companies hire them. (read this one twice)
Tech companies have been promising to “get better” now for almost a decade. So, a seemingly fair question… how much improvement on the numbers of women and people of color?
How’s this for an answer… Nothing. Zip. Nada. Bupkis. Ok, in all fairness, some numbers have moved ever-so-slightly. But I guaran-damn-tee that the amount of movement would be called “remained flat” in any financial results analysis.
If one of these tech firms had a critical financial metric scrutinized by their Board, and was unable to improve that metric at all in two years… how deep of analysis would be in play to satisfy the Board? What do you think would happen to the executive team? Whacked, is what would happen. Adios amigos.
At Facebook, Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino (as EEO categories) remain substantially the same (2% and 4% respectively) as 2012, although Facebook’s headcount has grown almost 350% during that same time. 350%! Female employment is up a single percentage point during that same time.
In 2014, Facebook Diversity Czar Maxine Williams wrote “So at Facebook we’re serious about building a workplace that reflects a broad range of experience, thought, geography, age, background, gender, sexual orientation, language, culture and many other characteristics.”
Yeah… I’m calling bullshit.
Add to this the near assault-on-women going on. This pervasive environment of sexual harassment cannot exist in a vacuum. CEOs, when not the perpetrator (which seems to be common), know or permit such conduct. Investors turn a blind eye. VCs accept it as frat-boy shenanigans. Current examples include Uber’s Kalanick, Caldbeck of Binary Capital, Dave McClure at 500 Startups (and his subsequent bullshit apology).
This behavior is just the recent stuff, and only notable because it’s already in the news. As any who work in HR will tell you, if there’s “one or two,” there’s damned sure more.
Tell me again how diversity and inclusion within tech companies is a priority, and that they are doing “everything they can” to improve. Another bullshit call.
If I seem a bit ticked about this stuff, I am. And those who know me, know that I’m not a huge fan of diversity program efforts. But dammit, this is an industry who frequently holds itself up — and above others — as a beacon for social change and progressive improvement. And they’re frauds.
Here I am, in Houston Texas. Though incredibly diverse, many others don’t see my city in that regard. Saddled with the legacy of oil & gas and drilling mavericks, many believe that the good old boy network still runs at full speed here. It doesn’t, and as a matter of fact, Houston blows Silicon Valley out of the water when it comes to workplace diversity and inclusion.
According to the US Census Bureau to look in the valleys tech workforce is less than 3% black and just over 4% Hispanic. I’m from backwoods Houston, supposedly a bastion of good old boys (read: middle-aged white guys), and our tech workforce is 11.9% black and 12.6% Hispanic. We rank #1 for minority entrepreneurs.
In fact, almost every major metropolitan area in the country does a better job employing black and Hispanic tech workers than Silicon Valley. Houston, I think there’s a problem… in Silicon Valley.
And please, no crap about locally available talent. Silicon Valley has almost 3 times as many Blacks and Hispanics with degrees than employees, while employing four times the number of foreign nationals than black and Hispanic.
We cannot continue to accept microscopic improvements as advancement. I’ll say again: if tech executives and investors believed the poor diversity showing to actually be a major limiting factor to the company, they would put the effort and resources behind it and fix it. Until that occurs, we’ll just get more lip service.
Okay, why is this such an intractable challenge?
Personally, I doubt their sincerity. I don’t think they lay awake staring at the ceiling, agonizing over the lack of diversity at their organization. I think pledges they make publicly, and other idiotic moves like publicizing diversity goals, are simply an attempt to appear responsive to media accusations that racism and sexism just continue to permeate the tech industry.
In other words just a bunch of hooey.
I think it’s hysterical that some tech firms — Facebook, for example — actually blame the education pipeline for their inability to hire an equitably diverse workforce. Think about the sheer irony here… Mark Zuckerberg Facebook CEO is not a college graduate (nor is his cofounder Dustin Moskovitz). Bill Gates, Microsoft founder, another non-graduate, as is Tony Hsieh of Zappos.
Don’t even get me started about John Mackey, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Richard Branson, Howard Schultze or Walt Disney. I’m not advocating dropping out of college, but I am saying you cannot use lack of diverse college graduates—even if true—when most technology and innovation has come from non-college graduates.
It’s the culture, folks. It’s broken, and must be fixed, and morph into something where diversity and inclusiveness are absolutely central to the success of the organization. Making diversity a bolt on statistic to a workforce will simply not work. Negative messaging—incentives, threats—don’t work.
Compliance is not enough… a culture shift is required, and that can’t come solely through compliance. Some starting points:
Consequences matter. Both positive and negative.
HR must change the focus to conversations, dialog and the commitment to diversity as a success competency, not a best-places-to-work soundbite.
Candidate sourcing—change it, get better… This isn’t that difficult. You don’t recruit at a junior-college for ivy-leage graduates, because they aren’t there. Shift to target-rich sourcing environments.
Modify the culture to retain diverse employees. Issues must be able to be raised without consequence (opposite of Google’s latest debacle). Failure without fear. Mentorships and advisors readily available to all.
Money matters (always will)—but actions matter more. Show a commitment, don’t just keep talking about it.
This isn’t an all-inclusive list; nor is it some high-level, ultra-sophisticated rocket science. It’s problem solving 101, and it’s the same thinking process that drives revenue models, market approach and funding conversations. Apply it to diversity, if you believe it’s important.
If not, just shut up about it. I’m tired of you complaining, whining, promising, explaining and justifying failure. It’s bullshit, and enough is enough.
People today say, “I’m offended” as if they are wielding some mythical sword, demanding apologies and causing all to immediately alter the alleged offense or face a run-through with the blade. We have, as a society, lost our collective ability to say “whatever,” and move on. Now, we feel like we have the power to force people to change from saying anything that we take offense to, merely because we take offense.
