We’ve decided to showcase Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome and General Plunderer, as this month’s Leader.
Not because he was a “good guy,” though he was considered the last of the Five Good Emperors, a time period thought to be ruled by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. Sorta like telling an employee you can fire them for any reason, but you won’t because you’re just not that kind of jerk…
No, we selected Marcus because of his personal leadership style and philosophy. First, he was good at leading an army. These were not the days when leading an army happened in monitor-laden control room thousands of miles away. Leadership during Marcus’ time was a little more hands-on than that. He defeated multiple armies that threatened his empire, many of them at the same time. Most powerful man in the world, but heralded as a noble leader with moral character. A good all-around Joe.
And more importantly, at least for our discussion today, were his personal writings where he recorded his private notes and thoughts on many things, including human behavior, influence and leadership. The writings have been combined into a loose publication called Meditations. Bluntly, these works are fairly badass in the “quotable” department. For example, these three are our favorites:
“…how we learn; by looking at each thing, both the parts and whole. Keeping in mind that none of them interpret how we perceive it.”
Today’s translation: Perception is reality for those who perceive. Facts are facts, data are data; what we do with them and what they mean depends on our perceptions. And don’t forget—others are doing the same thing!
“…you’ve made enough mistakes yourself. You’re just like them.”
Today’s translation. You’re not all that. Humility is a good thing. Ego can cripple a senior leader; remember that just because you are called to make big, bad, difficult decisions, you are no better or worse than anyone else. Bigger titles don’t equate to more self-worth.
“When you lose your temper or even feel irritated: [remember] that human life is very short. Before long all of us will be laid out side by side.”
Today’s translation: In the big scheme, this isn’t. Most things aren’t a big deal. Bad decisions can be remade, and calmness is a virtue for leaders. It’s not the end of the world. As Bill from my men’s group is fond of saying, “The death rate among humans is 100%.”
Something we preach at Triangle Performance is evidenced in this article:
People are still people; human behavior is a constant.
All in all, a no brainer for our Leadership Leader for the month, though saying “for the month” may be a bit disingenuous…
Leadership Milquetoast
Leadership Milquetoast
Our love-hate relationship with United Airlines continues. We probably look like some lame politician during an election cycle, flip-flopping every month or so. Like a politician, then, we’ll just say we aren’t flip-flopping, we’re just “modifying our position.”
To wit: United Airlines CEO Oscar Muñoz appeared on CNBC and said something quite moving about leadership, specifically about rules. He confessed that United had lots of rules. Many of those undoubtedly idiotic. Then, in a bizarre twist that made me think an alien had taken over his body, he actually said, “They don’t have to be rules.”
What?? You mean that self-imposed rules created by a manager to deal with a one-off situation don’t automatically morph into statutory law of the land?? How can this be?
So, let’s be fair. The comment was a stellar one, had it been either spoken by someone not trying all that’s holy to rebuild brand credibility, or had it been accompanied by a believable commitment to change the blindingly asinine way that rules at United are enforced today. Given either of those scenarios, the words may have been like music.
Instead, the comments are met with suspicion, given there was no promise to change, and that Munoz is trying to make up for a year that nightmares are made of. Instead of music, they grate like fingers on a chalkboard. At a minimum, those comments are met with some reasonable skepticism.
He didn’t help himself as he moved forward: Muñoz then said that instead of being called rules, “…they can [just] be policies or procedures that can be adapted for the moment.”
Our Triangle Bullshit Translator deciphered that sentence; it’s code-word for “we’ll do whatever we want, when we want, based on the particular whims of the United employee in that moment.”
Why doesn’t that make me feel better?
So, here we are. To be fair, Oscar Muñoz did say a couple of things that are sound, forward-thinking leadership concepts.
We shouldn’t have so many rules that stifle the customer experience, and
The rules that we do have should be measured based on the situation at hand.
These are good things, and would make an ordinary company in competition for our Leadership Leader.
Alas, it’s United, a two-time Leadership Laggard, and we must take a more “wait and see” approach before hastily rewarding one-time stellar behavior. So, we’ll settle for something in between.
For almost doing the right thing, Oscar, you and United are September’s Leadership Milquetoast. You’re welcome.
Leadership Laggard
We are really unhappy with Equifax.
To make a long story short, their response to the potential compromise of personally identifiable information (mostly just names, dates of birth and social security numbers) for up to 143 million people – nearly half the population of the U.S. – has sucked so far. Now ex-Chairman and ex-CEO Rick Smith called it “a disappointing event,” and he’s sorry for the “concern and frustration” it’s causing.
Yeah well, not quite good enough for us, especially considering there was a patch for the vulnerability available two months before the breach, they didn’t notice the data was being compromised for two and a half months, and they didn’t tell anyone about it for six weeks. Not even the three executives who cashed in $2 million worth of stock two days after the breach was discovered… that was pure coincidence.
But it was damned sure irresponsible to keep the news under wraps “while they investigated.” Did they learn nothing from Yahoo? Or eBay? Or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)? Apparently not.
Every step of their response has been because of a public outcry. “Minor” mistakes like confusing the hell out of customers when they want to know what to do; asking for credit cards to monitor your credit that they endangered themselves; forcing people who want their credit monitored to be bound by arbitration instead of participating in a class action lawsuit, etc. While Smith grovels, Equifax’s response to the outcry is, “Oops; we didn’t think about that.” And then they react.
Way to get ahead of the game, folks. Your head-in-the-sand approach is a textbook example of how to handle a crisis. That’s just what well-led people do… NOT.
Back to the story: Equifax eventually set up a hokey looking website that will tell you if “your information may have been impacted.” Unfortunately, you have to trust them with your data again, and they’re not going to give you a definitive answer anyway. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know we allmay have been impacted, since almost half the country was.
Did I mention that they only have your information because the big banks and credit card companies gave it to them? That’s right, you didn’t ask them to protect your information, anyway. They got my whole family’s information from OPM, who compromised the data from my security clearance application (another story for another time).
Good news, though: Assuming you trust them, you can sign up – with Equifax, of course – for free credit monitoring. I might be a little more confident using one of the other big agencies who haven’t compromised all the data it will take to steal your identity… that we know of.
And you can use Equifax to freeze your credit, if you can get their sign-up link to work.
A quick check on their site confirms that 100% of us here at Triangle AND our families “may have been impacted.” For some reason, Smith’s disappointment doesn’t make us feel better about it. I expect more from one of 2017’s most admired CEOs in the Atlanta area… and maybe a recount.
Smith promised changes, but he doesn’t tell us what. Maybe he’ll tell Congress when he testifies next month. We were curious how much toothpaste he could get back in the tube before then, but it turns out we’ll have to look to someone else for answers. On September 26th, Smith finally took his first step towards accountability during the fiasco: he retired.
The genie’s still out of the bottle, though. For their mishandling of the entire preventable incident, we’re naming Richard Smith and the whole Equifax cybersecurity team as this month’s Leadership Laggards. Thanks for nothin’.
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.”
Seems like I’ve been reading a lot over the last few years about activist investors shaking up a company’s leadership – sometimes successfully and sometimes not. Some recent examples include Proctor & Gamble, Nestlé, Samsung (this month’s Leadership Laggard), insurance giant American International Group (AIG), railroad CSX Corp., Buffalo Wild Wings (June’s Leadership Milquetoast) and Avon. Sometimes just the threat of a proxy war can influence leadership to accommodate the investor’s desired change a company’s direction.
Not so with Automatic Data Processing (ADP) CEO, Carlos Rodriguez. You can argue that ADP could use some fresh ideas, but you can’t deny Rodriguez has the cajones to stand up to Bill Ackman, the latest activist challenge to his leadership.
There’s definitely some “he-said, he-said” going on, and I have neither the time nor the inclination to sort out the alternative facts, but Rodriguez was definitely not going to kowtow to an investor who’s stake in ADP is still in stock options.
A couple of things we believe here at Triangle: no one gets their own facts, and you can make numbers support any position you want to take. 58% of statistics are made up, anyway.
Billionaire hedge-fund manager Ackman wanted ADP to reduce “corporate bloat” (who doesn’t, except the bloat), accelerate investment in back-end improvements and product migrations, and increase sales force productivity. I’m fine with those suggestions, although they’re hardly fresh ideas.
Rodriguez countered that Ackman’s analysis was based on cherry-picked data from 2009 and pointed out ADP has out-performed the S&P 500’s returns and eclipsed (like the solar one last week) those of Ackman’s hedge fund over the last half decade. After ADP refused Ackman’s request to extend the deadline for his board member nomination earlier this month, ADP’s board rejected all of Ackman’s nominees (including Ackman himself). The board explained that the nominees would bring no “additive skills or experience to ADP’s board.”
Rodriguez has been with ADP for almost 20 years and has a track record of successful performance and effective leadership. Ackman, who’s recent investments include Chipotle (last month’s Laggard), J.C Penny’s, Target, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, has been an ADP investor for barely a month. But, I don’t have to pick a side.
Recognizing a CEO who bucked the trend and stood up to a bully investor, we congratulate Carlos Rodriguez for being named Triangle Performance’s August Leadership Leader.
Lots of aspersions have been cast on Damore, many pretending that he said things he clearly and openly dismissed in the memo itself. Damore didn’t say that women are biologically unfit for tech, or that diversity is bad, or that sexism doesn’t exist.
I’ve read Google’s code of conduct; to say this guy violated it is a stretch in reasonableness, and requires interpretations not in evidence.
Pichai said “It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
With this broad interpretation, they can hide behind most anything as a code of conduct violation. The manifesto did not harass, intimidate, show bias (except to use bias as a clear foundation of error), and was not unlawful discrimination. At most, it hurt someone’s feelings. Get over it.
And don’t forget–Google sucks (that’s the technical term) at diversity already. They needed the catalyst for conversation this could have created. Instead, they got bupkus.
If the guy is completely and absolutely wrong, then there is zero reason why Google shouldn’t have positive diversity representation, meaning their significant lack of representation today (or really any meaningful progress at all) must be willful and intentional.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains,
no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”–Arthur Conan Doyle
It’s not a free speech issue per se, since companies aren’t required to allow constitutional free speech (that’s between government and citizens), but it certainly smacks of retaliation for disagreeing with a position. At a bare minimum, it has created a seriously chilling effect on open dialog around diversity and inclusion.
Google–and virtually every other tech company–should get their own house in order before bullying others to suppress opinions. We need diversity—real diversity—in organizations today. I see it as a business necessity for future success. But Pichai, that’s a really dumb way to go about it.
Talk about a missed opportunity. These sorts of conversations–in the open–are what real diversity and inclusion efforts are missing. Google will never have another chance to have an open dialog around these topics (with those who may have different thoughts). No one will ever dissent again publicly. They blew that big time.
That was an unforced error, Sundar Pichai, and it makes you this month’s Leadership Milquetoast.
Leadership Laggard
We wanted to honor Samsung’s board of directors with this month’s Laggard award, but we couldn’t figure out who’s really running the 60+ company conglomerate that makes up the Samsung Group. Certainly not the Chairman, Lee Kun-hee, who hasn’t been seen publicly since suffering a heart attack in 2014.
So, we settled for spotlighting his son, Jae-Yong Lee, aka Jay Y. Lee, and one of two Vice Chairmen of Samsung Electronics who was sentenced last week to five years in prison for bribery, embezzlement and hiding assets overseas.
Remember ousted South Korean president Park Geun-hye? Lee and some of his colleagues have been accused of bribing Park and a “friend” to the tune of $17M in donations to organizations affiliated with the friend and an $800,000 horse for the friend’s daughter to ride. Lee needed government support to merge a few companies in the Samsung Group to strengthen his family’s control. Apparently, the move wasn’t particularly popular with non-family investors.
So, why are we picking on Lee, since he wasn’t alone in the scheme? Because he expected to be treated like the heir apparent when he didn’t know squat about leading or running the business. He was a figurehead who clearly wasn’t busy enough to stay out of trouble. He said it best himself at his trial: “There was no line of approval involving me. I had no knowledge to make decisions, nor the competence.”
Hardly something to brag about from a Vice Chairman of the world’s biggest smartphone and memory chip maker. We’re not worried about Samsung, though; there are some talented guys (excluding Lee) at the top of the electronics giant. Under the leadership of the three co-CEOs who didn’t go to jail, Samsung Electronics posted record net income, released the Galaxy S8, the Note 8, and stock prices reached an all-time high in the six months since Lee was imprisoned.
Think what they might be able to achieve with him behind bars for five years!
Leadership isn’t about titles and control; that’s dictatorship. For his refusal to take responsibility and his clear lack of leadership, we’re pleased to name Jay Y. Lee this month’s coveted Leadership Laggard.
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.
I’m a military veteran. As such, I frequently read old military books, discourses, and papers in an effort to compare corporate leadership today with historical military leadership. The similarities are astounding.
A 1941 book published by the Military Service Publishing Company is one such work. Edited by the staff, it has no specific author, but is a compilation of thoughts, ideas, suggestions and directives from a stream of notable military leaders. Some — just as an example — include the likes of General J.G. Harbord, who began as a private in the Spanish-American war, achieved prominence as General Pershing’s Chief of Staff, and later commanding the USMC’s 2nd Division before assuming the Chairmanship of the RCA Corporation.
Just an example of the caliber of input for this book…
In this book, Chapter II discusses “Orientation.” Of course, it is meant to apply mostly to new officers at a new post or assignment. Truth is, the advice given there — some 65+ years ago to junior officers — is as appropriate today for first time managers as it is senior-most leadership.
Sections and brief summaries include:
Your Brother Officers: “The commissioned officers of the U.S. military are a cross-section of the American Public… as a group, they are subject to the same ambitions, variations in viewpoint, and human frailties as the people they serve.”
This, of course, matches up with our corporate situations today. Managers and leaders have different backgrounds and experiences, bringing different thought-processes and judgment. When harnessed for the common good, this is an excellent trait, one we should exploit, not suppress. Different thinking means more choices. More choices usually means better decisions. Or, as many would put it — embrace your wierdness.
Performance of Duty: “In the military, the performance of duty to the limit of one’s capacity is a fetish. Striving for perfection is more than a figure of speech… as you demonstrate your capacity for additional responsibility, it will come to you… be not impatient… there is much to learn.”
Wow, is this appropos or what…? Work hard, smart, and consistent. Do what you say you’ll do. Make well-thought decisions. Those of you who have achieved significant corporate rank: Did you get there through politics, trickery, and slight-of-hand, or was it hard work, diligence, and sacrifice??
This stuff really works.
Get Out, or Get in Line: “Mind your business. If the concern where you are employed is all wrong, and the Old Man a curmudgeon (I like that word), it may be well for you to go tell the Old Man, confidentially, privately, and quietly, that he is a curmudgeon. Explain to him that his policy is absurd and proposterous. Then show him how to reform his ways, and offer to lead the effort to cleanse the faults. Do this, or if for any reason you should prefer not, then take your choice of these: Get Out, Or Get In Line.
If you work for a man, in heaven’s name, work for him! Speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him and the institution he represents.
If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage, why, resign your position and, when on the outside, damn to your heart’s content.”
This quotation is so appropriate in corporate management today that it needs no explanation, segue, or pithy remarks from me. Simply put — work for whomever you work for. Grammatical errors aside, you get my point. Don’t we all get tired of those who work “for” us part of the time, and “against” us the rest?
Importance of the Word ‘NO’: “As an officer, many questions will come to you for decisions… the choice you make in the mere act of saying “yes,” or “no,” may constitute the measure of your success. A weak man can say “yes” to troublesome situations, dissipating the efforts of the whole. An unwise man can say “no,” and by mere obstruction, cause the failure of the unit. It takes a happy combination of courage and wisdom to be able to say “no” at the right time and place.”
Simply put, our most significant, regular responsibility — day to day and strategic — is making decisions. Anyone can make the easy ones… they seldom take forethought, intellect, or wisdom, since they are usually painfully obvious and accolades are near. No, they pay us for the hard ones. The lonely decisions. The times when we make the “right” decision in the face of dissent and conflict, and where the easier decision is to abide with consensus. That’s why they pay us the bucks, and give us these fancy business cards.
Adaptability: “Adaptability is required. Leadership is a new and different life. He must be equally quick to detect and avoid those things which are abhorrent to military life… the road to recognition and fame may lie ahead. How well and how quickly the opportunities are embraced depends upon the promptness of adapting himself to the new horizons the career provides.”
You can’t always spell out the details of a leadership role in a nice, convenient job description. Our worlds are dynamic, fluctuating, and ever-changing. We’ve got to know when to “stay the course,” and when to turn on a dime. All the while keeping those looking to us for leadership engaged in our path. This is what sets us apart.
I only provided these today for two reasons. First, a reminder: Leadership — it’s theories, concepts, and approaches, really haven’t changed since the beginning of man. Yes, some applications of principles have evolved over time, given our changing workforce, demographics, and societal norms. The real concepts and basis of leadership, however, remain constant.
And lastly, we can learn a lot from simplicity. Sometimes we make this stuff too hard, when we could get to the same place — maybe even a better place — with approaches that embrace simplicity and ease of thought.
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.
A 1941 book published by the Military Service Publishing Company is one such work. Edited by the staff, it has no specific author, but is a compilation of thoughts, ideas, suggestions and directives from a stream of notable military leaders. Some — just as an example — include the likes of General J.G. Harbord, who began as a private in the Spanish-American war, achieved prominence as General Pershing’s Chief of Staff, and later commanding the USMC’s 2nd Division before assuming the Chairmanship of the RCA Corporation.
