by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 10, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement
Big egos are have been the death of many a senior executive. It’s such a waste, and it doesn’t need to be that way.
Enter Microsoft’s Satya Nadella.
During a recent conference, speaking to a group of women, Nadella said they should wait for pay raises to come when an organization recognizes them. Please note–he didn’t say women should wait, or that women should do anything different than men. He just happened to be speaking to a women’s group, and social media began flogging Nadella for his comments.
In context, his comments were fine. Taken out of context–the world in which public figures live, like it or not–his words sucked. At best, he misspoke (current political favorite); at worst, he screwed up.
Either way, he fixed it. It’s never the first mistake or bad decision that gets us in trouble; it’s the second–the one we make after we realize the first one was wrong. Nadella knocked that second one out of the park.
No qualifications, no equivocations… he just apologized. “I screwed up, I’m sorry.”
It’s that easy, folks. Take notes.
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 16, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement
It’s finally over. The World Cup, soccer’s Super Bowl, is done.
Germany wins. Now, back to real sports on television (kidding, kidding…).
Though, obvious by my snide comment, soccer isn’t “my
thing,” it clearly has a world following. Mostly because other countries don’t
have baseball, football–the real one :)–or basketball to watch during
off-seasons, but no matter… millions watch soccer.
So, what can we learn from watching those games (assuming
you did watch them)? Well, aside from “don’t bet on the home team” (7-1 Brazil…
seriously??), there are some leadership lessons buried within that
larger-than-a-football-field arena…
- Winning
is not a one-man game. Soccer has stars, to be sure, but the players don’t have
the luxury of quarters or periods. They go flat out for 45 minutes at a time.
At any given time, one or more players are “flat-out,” while others are just
“running hard,” the soccer version of on-field resting. 11 players on the field
for each team, and it takes all 11 to win. The German team wasn’t a collection
of bought-and-paid-for stars (think Miami Heat), but a well-honed team of
players who needed each other (synergy) to succeed.
- Short-term
actions, long-term view. There are 54 total matches played during the World
Cup. Germany eventually won the World Cup by beating Argentina (the long-term
goal), but had to win six matches (games) before that just for the opportunity.
Strategy is necessary, of course, as are long-term goals. But it’s execution of
the tactical that takes us to the end. In short, both are necessary for
success.
- Stopping
the reverse pony-express.Long-term development of talent leads to long-term
business success. A close friend of mine derides organizations for what he
calls the “reverse pony-express syndrome,” whereby we ride a horse until it
nearly drops, swap riders, and start again on the same horse. Germany is a
great example of not doing that. As a true team, they relied on the collective
versus one standout player; so much so that the MVP was actually awarded to a
losing player. We don’t need the best individuals to get the best results, we
need folks who play well together and look out for the common good.
So, I may not be a soccer aficionado, and I may have screwed
up some jargon above due to my ignorance (forgive me, European colleagues and
friends), but the lessons are solid nonetheless, proving that even in the
mind-numbingly boring, we can derive pearls of wisdom.
Did I mention I prefer real football?
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 10, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
I recently read a blog posting from someone holding themselves out as a “contrarian” HR professional (consultant, of course).
Now, I consider myself something of a contrarian myself, as many have used words like that (and sometimes even MORE colorful) to describe my rants, thinkings, and positions on various issues, and I’m OK with that.
This particular blog entry, however, brought a couple of things to light… (more…)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 5, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Uncategorized
The NBA’s Adam Silver is no demonstrably exceptional leader. At least
given the recent example of decision-making without discernment. At best, he
could be a negative example… something to hold up as a “kids, don’t do this”
sort of thing.
Now, before everyone gets all huffy, hear me out; Donald
Sterling is a moronic jerk. I can’t say for certain whether he’s a racist, though I can say
that, assuming the recordings are valid and in context, he’s said some things
that sure sounded racist. He damned sure needed to be punished, no
question. I don’t question Silver’s decision, merely make a case that the decision was virtually faite accompli, and not representative of the type of lofty leadership with which others are giving credit.
Here’s the thing: making a reactionary decision, based
on extraordinary public outcry on behavior that by all accounts was nothing new
(numerous accounts of Sterling saying these things before) is far from an
exhibition in leadership. It shows no vision (the behavior wasn’t new) and it (forcing sale) wasn’t even his decision to make. He simply decided to ask the owners to
make that decision.
He’s being held up as courageous, in part, for making a
decision to ask someone else to make a decision.
Corporate sponsors were bailing out, players (even the
Clippers’) were talking boycott, and the media frenzy was threatening to sully
the entire sport. Donald Sterling didn’t “do” anything special (this time) except say
something to a single person that was recorded. This entire hoopla is not based
on Sterling’s previously well-known racist behaviors (e.g., discriminatory slumlord) or any such atrocity.
This became an issue because dollars started being effected.
In my view, Silver
had no choice, and no-choice decisions–like bankruptcy, financial layoffs,
closures, paying required taxes and making payroll on payday–are not
“leadership,” no matter how necessary. In fact, they frequently represent quite the opposite.
Like all decisions, there are two camps in the aftermath.
Those who believe a given decision was correct hail the decision-maker as smart and
decisive; those who do not, see the decision as a poor one made in the heat of
the moment without benefit of due consideration. I’m not weighing in behind
either camp—I’m simply saying that this particular decision, though potentially
necessary—was no specific indicator of leadership acumen and values.
Sort of like the optimist/pessimist argument: pessimists say
the glass is half empty, optimists say the glass is half full. I’m a
consultant; all I know is that you’ve got too much glass.
Now, to add insult to injury, Dennis Hof has banned Sterling from the Bunny Ranch brothel in Nevada. And he did it proactively, unwilling to jeopardize current clientele who might be present when Sterling paid a visit, using known evidence and incomplete information and without any media or public pressure.
Just something to think about.
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Apr 5, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics
The troops eat first.
In earlier times, this was a simple axiom, borne of logic: First came the horses, then the troops (foot soldiers), then the officers. Over time, it was shortened to simply, “the troops eat first.”
I would suggest that it’s just as relevant today as then, though for different reasons.
Leadership effectiveness simply means “Take care of your people — especially the good ones — so they won’t have to do it themselves.” I often tell C-level managers that “someone has to look after the well-being of your solid performers.” If you don’t do it yourself, the employee has to. Usually with the help of an outside friend, headhunter, or someone with influence and priorities other than yours.
Make sure they are “fed.” Developed, mentored, and given ample opportunity. Not necessarily a big, cumbersome, formal effort, but something that clearly shows them that, “Hey, I’m looking out for you — no need to look elsewhere for development & growth.”
The troops eat first, el generale…
by Triangle Performance Staff | Feb 6, 2014 | Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics
NPR just published a great article about the impact of “toxic leadership,” something that I think we all would agree is a problem, and not just in the military. (Army Takes On Its Own Toxic Leaders)
Aside from the horrifying findings of the research (toxic leaders playing a role in the suicide of our soldiers), the article paints a vivid picture of a very special type of leader, one that I have encountered in many places. The article speaks to a new definition printed in the Army’s leadership bible (Army Doctrine Publication) that most, in and out of the military, can relate. What’s interesting is that the Army went to significant pains to describe what leadership isn’t. In doing so, they’ve painted a vivid picture of what most of us have encountered somewhere in our career and hopefully use that experience to learn what not to do similarly to the Army’s efforts with their definition of “Toxic Leadership.” (Army Doctrine Publication 6-22)
The Army’s definition, while wordy (like most military regulations) can best be summed up in its first line:
“Toxic leadership is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance.”
Have you ever run across someone like that who was in a managerial role? Someone who saw their employees, and likely their peers as a means to an end, typically an end that was completely self-centered in nature? If not, consider yourself fortunate.
So what is the cost of BAD leadership? In corporate America, we might see bad leadership tied to suicide but I personally think the suicide being committed most often is committed by our corporations rather than the employees subjected to it and what’s worse, it’s usually a slow suicide.
The cost of bad leadership can be measured in results, but more importantly the costs can be best measured in terms of results compared to said effort. Far too many organizations turn a blind eye to bad leadership because the bad leaders get results. How many times have you heard (or maybe even thought to yourself) “we can’t get rid of him; he gets results.” Maybe the thought should be “what is he costing us in terms of results we could be achieving?” These managers often do deliver results in the short-term but at a significantly higher cost than necessary. In many cases, those costs go far beyond hard dollars which is why they are sometimes easy to overlook. The real costs are frequently soft dollars that are harder to measure but carry much more impact.
Setting aside the emotion laced conversation of suicide, simply replace that with voluntary resignation or complete disengagement (quitting without leaving). Bad leadership negatively impacts the investment made in every new hire (military or corporate) by limiting the potential return (outputs) from that investment and significantly impacting the life cycle of the asset itself (separation or quitting without leaving). Longer-term, though suicide may not be a typical result of bad leaders in corporate America, the damage it does or can do to our current employees and future leaders is significant.
What makes bad leaders even more dangerous is that they tend to be very good at convincing those above them that they are good leaders and end up capitalizing on that false perception and get moved to even higher levels of responsibility. Their damage, then, is not localized and much harder to repair once discovered.
So what do you do about “toxic” leaders? I suggest that you treat them as what they are, a toxin. With toxins you usually have two choices, cut it out along with the damaged tissue (other infected leaders) or isolate the toxin by surrounding it with positive leadership and mitigate the negative impact. Most importantly, you have to deal with toxic leaders or like a real toxin in our bodies, the damage spreads and the longer it remains, the faster and deeper it spreads and dealing with the issue becomes more difficult.
So the question of the day is, do you have any toxic leaders?
