Benno Dorer is a Rockstar. He was recently recognized as the highest-rated CEO by Glassdoor in its 2017 Employees’ Choice Awards, surpassing Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg in the top 10 list.
Now, let’s get something straight here. I’m neither for nor against glassdoor.com, but at least theirs is based on relevant, first-hand input, not like some of the myriad “great places to work,” and Fortune’s “here are our favorite companies” listings. Glassdoor is a website where current and past employees get to rate their employer, including specific ratings and comments for the CEO. For the record, I always take at least a cursory look at glassdoor.com ratings when speaking with a new or potential client.
A fairly valid grading system, and Dorer clocked in at 99%. NINETY NINE percent!! I’m impressed at anything above 80, so this is rarefied air indeed. And he blew right past all the Fortune favorites and greatest places reviewers hoping to snag a client—he scored well above Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos, et al.
And before now, who had even heard of this guy, specifically by name??
By the way, lest you fall for the myth that popular (read “nice”) leaders must be milquetoast business managers, know that Clorox stock has increased in value by almost 40% since Benno took over in late 2014. That’s just two and a half years, for the mathematically challenged among us.
Dorer is the real deal. When notified of the award, he said the title was humbling and “gratifying in a sense that I take it as a vote of confidence from our employees in the direction we’re taking the company.” While we’re quoting the guy, he also said:
“A good leader is someone who ‘has a point of view, has a vision of what can be accomplished and enrolls others in that vision and helps get barriers out of the way.’”
“Diversity and inclusion is something that is good for employees and also good for business.”
“As leaders, employees expect us to make the tough calls, and empower them make tough calls themselves. Employees want us to be decisive.”
“We measure employee engagement and… my own pay is determined by that engagement level…”
(Re-read that last one—his pay is determined (in part) by employee engagement levels!)
“What I care about is results, versus how many hours you put in.”
Now, read this last quote, because it sums up everything Dorer does to exude successful leadership in a nutshell, “I leave it up to my people on how they accomplish what it is we want to accomplish. So, try to empower people to do what they can do best–I try to stay out of their way–and create a real supportive environment.”
To do that, senior leaders must be confident; not just in themselves, but in their vision, direction, veracity of strategy, and ability to discern results and outcomes quickly. In other words, they must be confident to lead.
And Benno Dorer clearly does that solidifying his position as this month’s Leadership leader.
Milquetoast
Sally Smith, CEO of Buffalo Wild Wings
When investors get antsy, senior executives get defensive. That’s not necessarily a negative leadership response, if that leads to action that makes the company better.
It is a poor leadership response if they start blamestorming for their failure to respond to changes in the market.
Enter Buffalo Wild Wings. Along with many other restaurants of their genre, BWW has been suffering from declining profits over the last few years. Why? According to the CEO, Sally Smith, it’s the Millennials’ fault.
No, really. Apparently “millennial consumers are more attracted than their elders to cooking at home…”
Note: I unscientifically polled 100% of the millennials in my household and found no evidence to support Sally’s claim.
Granted, she also whined that shopping mall traffic was down – a blinding flash of the obvious – and added declining viewership of sporting events as a contributing factor to BWW’s woes, but why did she think excusing her management team’s failure to adapt to a changing market was going to appease the shareholders?
Hey, Sally, here’s a reality check: the BWW customer experience has been in decline for the last half decade in some pretty important categories (food quality, service, cleanliness, and menu variety to name a few). You can cherry-pick statistics all you want, but that doesn’t mean BWW didn’t rank in the bottom quartile in every surveyed metric in the 2016 Nation’s Restaurant News Consumer Survey for casual dining restaurants.
Being dead last in the Overall Guest Experience category – including the bottom 10% of food quality and service – doesn’t exactly build confidence that senior leadership is paying attention to what it takes to get people to eat in your restaurant.
I’ll concede that BWW’s latest foray into food delivery service and a fast-food version of their restaurant (B-Dubs Express) shows they’re paying some attention to changing preferences, but that’s reactionary, not visionary. And that kind of leadership is definitely not going to convince people to come out to eat bad food, drink and watch sports on the big screens… not even us Boomers.
Sally Smith’s classic failure to accept responsibility for her leadership team’s lack of vision nearly made her this month’s Laggard, but she lost out to the competition (see below). So congrats, Sally, you’re the Triangle Performance Leadership Milquetoast for June 2017.
Laggard
Cheesecake Factory CEO, David Overton
Look, Davie here is also the founder, so he’s not going anywhere, but he could damned sure use a lesson in accountability. When revising downward his quarterly analyst’s forecast, he blamed the weather—yes, the WEATHER—for the decline in sales.
May not be as bad as Buffalo Wild Wings’ millennial crap, but it’s awfully close.
Yes, this is the same Cheesecake Factory you’re thinking of, with the two-ton sandwiches, 250-item menu, and restaurants so dimly lit you could catch lunchtime zzz’s after the carb overload. A meal there makes anyone feel like Mr. Creosote — the “better get a bucket…” guy from Monte Python’s Meaning of Life. I’d include a youtube link for that part, but I’d catch too much flack, so you can look it up yourselves.
THAT Cheesecake Factory.
And Overton is seriously claiming that weather in the East and Northeast reduced patio useage to the point it effected year over year sales. Yeah… right. I was born at night, but not LAST night.
Sure, Dave, maybe weather was bad. Maybe somewhat fewer gluttons dined on your outdoor patios. Or maybe, just maybe, your leadership needs a tuneup. Consider:
Over the past six months, the industry has gained 8.7%, while Cheesecake has lost 14.8%. Surely yours wasn’t the only patio effected.
The failure of your March value menu insert, ~10 items below $15, highlights the inability to drive incremental traffic.
The weak summer box office is problematic, given Cheesecakes’ proximity to movie theaters.
Increasing Costs: Cheesecake Factory was planning to open eight new restaurants in 2017 and is anticipating a 5+% increase in labor costs. Wage inflation has continued this year.
By the way, something else to consider… Though the Macaroni and Cheese Burger, Topped with Creamy Fried Macaroni, Cheese Balls and Cheddar Cheese Sauce SOUNDS simply decadent (almost 1,500 calories), that fare may be headed the way of the dodo bird.
Stock fell 10% overnight upon the “weather” announcement, so it seems investors were calling “bullshit” as well. The stock is near 52-week lows, and still 15% below that fateful announcement date.
Incoming Chief Financial Officer Matthew Clark (he’s not the “regular” CFO until July 7) said despite the climate impact, the company still expects same-store sales growth of 2%. Good luck with that, Matt, and best wishes on the new job. Hopefully, you’ll do better than Winnie the Pooh’s “The rain, rain, rain came down, down, down…”
As it is, your boss, David Overton, used the weather as a reason to avoid personal accountability for strategies and decisions that should be reconsidered. As such, he wins our Leadership Laggard for June.
Travis Kalanick is a jerk. Got it. His behavior was often juvenile, sometimes egregiously so. Got it. He got whacked because of that harassing and intimidating behavior. I got it—he’s a tool. But what does all that mean?
I’m reading all these articles and newly-minted pundits jump on the Uber-is-dying bandwagon. “The culture is shot.” “The entire management team must go.” “No way they can recover.” The list of attacks is endless, and helps us all understand the real meaning behind “blood in the water.” Some people smell it, and they want to help that alternative reality materialize.
Yeah, rotsa ruck with that.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, methinks the rumors of Uber’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Yes, some things need to change—as is true with all large organizations, particularly in the tech space. A brief google search reveals current lawsuits and EEOC claims for sexual harassment (and other employee transgressions) against Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, google, facebook, twitter, and just about every other deep-pocketed company, many of those name some very senior (C-level) executives.
This doesn’t normalize or excuse Kalanick’s boorish (and potentially unlawful) behavior, but frankly, Silicon Valley doesn’t have the best reputation for stellar employee treatment. Their diversity records suck, women and minorities are routinely marginalized, and I believe they routinely hide behind outlandish peripheral perks and a designer office environment (oops, I mean “campus”) to mask otherwise toxic behaviors and cultures. Kerry Flynn, writing for Mashable, says it better:
Silicon Valley’s worldview tends to applaud when founders move fast and break things. To this crowd, issues like gender discrimination are acceptable roadbumps for companies that are going to change the world. That’s why much of the industry tends to treat discrimination and harassment claims with a sense of dismissive detachment.
Props to Kerry – perfectly stated. All of this just goes to say that Kalanick was a tool, his personal behavior certainly didn’t represent Uber well, and his transgressions were neither new nor unique to the seemingly outraged observer community. Unsure why that translates into a complete destruction of an otherwise fast-growing company. Frankly, it shouldn’t.
Some things to consider…
Kalanick led the commercialization of real-time ridesharing. No, he didn’t actually invent the concept, his partner did (the obscure partner), but Kalanick is the one who made it viable and a household name. Who knows Ted Dabney? No one. He founded Atari Computers, but everyone knows Steve Jobs, who came along well afterwards and made it work. Similar to Kalanick.
Has he screwed up some of that? Hell yes. He’s had to change course with drivers, cities, legislators, et al, a dozen times. But he kept Uber growing.
Uber employs over 12,000 with revenues exceeding $6B. It’s currently worth nearly $70B. Kalanick did that, like it or not.
Michael Wolff in USA Today called Uber the Tech Company of the Year in 2013.
This allegedly evil company consistently (even today) outscores Lyft, Tesla, twitter and facebook on glassdoor.com. Whouldathunkit??
Uber ranks 4th in LinkedIn’s Top Companies 2017 Global Edition list, published just one week ago; trailing only google (actually “Alphabet.” who thought of that moronic name?), Facebook and Amazon. In fact, they improved their position from 5th in 2016. The Human Rights Campaign named Uber in their Best Places to Work 2016.
The company still has zero problems recruiting… People self-select where they want to work, oblivious to punditry and hater attacks.
It is – and remains – one of the most valuable startups in the world. 10 times larger than the nearest competitor, it’s growing rapidly in unchartered waters within a space being developed as we go. They are cutting edge, in almost every part of their approach and technology.
It’s a kick-ass company, and it’s not going anywhere.
Kalanick was a problem, no doubt. I don’t often support a founder in high-growth leaving, under almost any conditions, but I do understand it in this case. Not ideal for the business, but poorly managing media, PR and affected stakeholders can be a terminal error, as big as the harassing behavior that created the hooplah.
Anywhoo, he’s gone, Uber’s still here. To those who support, stay the course. To those who think the company has one foot in the grave… well, get used to disappointment.
Take the good, when available. Kalanick is gone, those who remain have a job to do, a company to run and a life to live. Take the good when you can, learn lessons from others, and at the risk of overuse of idiotic idioms, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water…
If we want change to be lasting and more effective, we have got to get better at leading it.
A group of us were talking the other day about leading through change, and I couldn’t help but recall the many reorganizations I’ve watched (or been part of) during my years in the Five-sided Puzzle Palace. It might surprise you to know that not all my experiences with change in the home of the world’s greatest military were positive. Some were slightly less painful than others, but almost all were less than effectively executed – yes, I’m being charitable – because the changes weren’t well led.
In fact, we’ve led it so badly for so long, the very word “reorganization” has taken on an adversarial connotation. I’ve heard it called realignment, refocus, transformation, shake-up, even “simply changing who people work for,” but not once did it feel like we were doing anything but reorganizing.
I’ve got the stick for a minute.
Here’s some lessons that came from examples I’ve see of how NOT to lead during change. I know there are other kinds of change besides a reorganization, but the leadership lessons learned – or not learned – apply across the board.
Most importantly, don’t plan the change in secret. I know… you don’t want to distract anyone from their work by giving them something else to stand around and have fact-free conversations about. Well guess what – too late. You can’t stop the rumor mill with secrecy, and they’re already distracted all day long by wondering “How does this change affect me?” They’ve even given it a pet name, like The Great Disorganization of 2015, Musical Cubicles or Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic.
Instead, communicate, communicate, and communicate some more. To the whole organization. Start with the “why” you’re changing, follow with “what” you’re trying to get out of the change, and continue with soliciting “how” it might work better from the people whose day-to-day activities are affected by the new way of doing thing. You’re trying to get buy-in from the doers, not the affirmation by middle management that they’re okay with the new power distribution.
Next, pleeeeeese don’t change the organization to fix someone’s lack of performance. As in, don’t move a function away from a poor manager and give it to a top performer as a reward. If you do, you can bet you’ve just sent a horrible message to your workforce.
Instead, make sure the change is about the good of the organization. Individual needs do not override the collective goals of the organization (thank you, Mr. Spock). If a manager’s not getting the job done, get him some help (development, coaching, etc.) or replace him. It shows that accountability is more than a slogan on the break room bulletin board.
Finally (almost), don’t continue down a dead-end road just to save face. Not all newly-created organizations work the way they’re envisioned. Teams don’t gel, new leaders don’t lead, promised resources don’t materialize, etc., etc. In fact, a lot of changes don’t pan out the way we think they’re going to, so…
Fix what you messed up, and don’t be shy about telling people why you need to change again. Help your people build change resiliency, and keep everyone’s focus on organizational performance.
Okay, really last… don’t drag out the implementation date. It’s hard on people to have to dance between their current, but soon-to-be-former boss and their soon-to-be boss. Would you rather have your tooth pulled in one appointment or have pieces of it extracted over a series of months?
Change happens, and there are winners and losers in every re-shuffle, but the only people who are happy with change are those in charge of it and those who benefit by it. Still, led properly, growth and success are its by-products, and everyone can get behind that.
Onboarding matters more than any other activity for speed-to-productivity and employee retention.
Onboarding employees today has taken on a new significance. No longer just “new employee orientation,” It can set the stage for long-term success, engagement and employee retention.
A recent SHRM report stated that Onboarding has four distinct levels, called the Four C’s: Compliance, Clarification, Culture, and Connection. The problem is the order—that model needs to be stood on its head, in exactly the reverse order.
Connection comes first. First employment days are wasted with forms and compliance… stop that! Spend that first day—the entire day—connecting with the newbie in a fun, meaningful way,
Make onboarding fun!
that lends value to the new employee first, the organization a distant second. Create an environment that someone wants to be a part of… demonstrate values today that will be reinforced tomorrow. Early connections are lasting connections. Later connections are just that—late.
Culture. Speaking of values… Included in that non-compliance first day, and possibly many more, is the weaving of culture norms and organizational values in demonstrable form, so that words and actions are immediately congruent, and new employees don’t have to wonder what things like “we value innovation” really mean.
Clarification starts assimilating that new employee into the organization and their specific role. Here we help these new folks understand their place in the company, their contributed value, and their significance in the long term for doing the job they were hired to do. It also reinforces their career direction and potential path—something critical for newer employees today.
Compliance events only occur after we have produced distinct connections, shown demonstrable culture and values, and provide some real job and career clarification. Compliance is an organization-only need, and as such brings up the rear in establishing long-term value to an employee. It’s important, but only to us. The employee doesn’t need it to realize his or her value. It must be done, but minimize its significance and distraction.
Onboarding today is the real deal. This is a challenge that can allow Human Resource professionals to play an absolute critical role in the long-term success of new talent. But you’ve gotta do it right, and focus on what’s important for the talent first.
I have a client where we just implemented a rigorous onboarding effort, that includes recruitment, orientation, and also the first several weeks of after-orientation employment. It’s already had a positive effect on retention and engagement, and both of those translate into significant organizational results.
There, I said it. I’m Kevin Berchelmann and I’m not a Packers fan.
“Hello, Kevin.”
It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the Packers as a football team; as a matter of fact, I actually think they’re pretty cool. I’ve even been to a game at Lambeau Field, and there’s no question that was an experience for a lifetime.
It’s just I’m from Texas, which causes a couple of problems. First, we have a couple of football teams here (maybe you’ve heard of them), and second I’d likely lose my Texas card if I bypassed two local teams in support of <gasp!> the Green Bay Packers. Anyway, let’s move on.
Photo by Mike Morbeck
I am, however, a fan of Aaron Rodgers. The guy is a class act, and he shows it in so many different ways. On the field, he’s one of the best. Ever. His record stands alone, and I won’t repeat all the stats here. Suffice to say, he does his job pretty damned well.
But even better than that, he’s a solid leader. For example, Aaron recently bought his offensive lineman personalized ATVs for Christmas. It was a big deal for four really big guys; green and gold ATVs each painted with the lineman’s jersey number and initials on the sides. And no, I’m not five months late in posting this. Those ATVs took a while to be custom-made, and they were just delivered this week.
Now look; the purchase price of all four of those didn’t put a dent in Aaron’s net worth. And frankly, those linemen could likely afford those ATVs on their own, even though the $20 grand would have a bit larger impact on their budget than Aaron’s.
That’s not the point. The point is, these four guys are the ones most responsible for Aaron Rodgers’ success. We use the phrase “blocking and tackling” all the time. These guys, however, actually no-shit block all the time. And Aaron knows that, appreciates that, and recognizes that. That’s what real leaders do — take care of those people who take care of them. Respect and recognize those who embrace our vision and help us succeed.
And these are the people who do it every day, day in day out. Not the prima donnas or elites who are already well rewarded for their efforts. No, these are the guys who get up in the morning and get the job done, though most people don’t even know their names. Except Packer fans of course, because those folks are bat-shit crazy, and likely know every thing about every player.
So… I’m not a Packers fan. I’m not even a recovering Packers fan. But I respect leadership well done, and Aaron Rodgers exemplifies that.
Gutsy decision to oust current CEO Mark Fields, a 25-year Ford veteran, in favor of Jim Hackett, a Ford outsider and most recently the CEO of Steelcase. Hackett had most recently been running Ford’s Smart Mobility initiative.
In all fairness, Fields had a tough act to follow; he followed Allen Mulally’s rock star tenure as Ford’s CEO. Mulally, another industry outsider, was personally responsible for averting Ford’s bankruptcy and refusing a government bailout — the only legacy automaker to do so. A CEO of our times, to be sure.
The bigger difference between them however may actually have been Mulally’s leadership ability, where he demonstrated transparency, a culture of positive leadership and the real benefits from working together, no easy culture shift for a behemoth like Ford. None of those traits personified Fields, more known for his combative approach than any easy-going personality. Fields is the guy who said that employees worrying about their pensions would be “a great motivator.” Cultures are hard to manage, and clearly Fields failed at driving Ford’s.
Late to the game
Fields, as CEO, said repeatedly that Ford didn’t want to be the first company to offer self-driving cars. Conversely Bill Ford felt otherwise, saying “I don’t want to be slow. We need to be quick in everything we do.”
Fields was playing catch-up, using the backs of employees to fund the effort; he announced earlier this year a plan to cut 3 billion in costs and as many as 1400 white-collar jobs. I can imagine the discussion… “Let’s get innovative!” says Fields. “Great—how do we pay for it?” says senior staff. “Let’s whack a couple thousand surplus employees—that’s a good start,” says Fields. A decidedly un-innovative approach; CEOs have been whacking folks to save a few bucks since time immemorial. It ain’t new.
The auto industry is being disrupted by companies like Tesla, Uber, and even Google and Apple with their self-driving efforts. Add to that the completely predictable decline in US auto sales, and you start painting a pretty good example of a lack of vision.
Conversely, Jim Hackett is Ford’s go-to guy for the future. “This is a time of unprecedented change,” Bill Ford said during a conference call. “And time of great change, in my mind, requires a transformational leader. And thankfully we have that in Jim.”
Thankfully, indeed. Hackett knows what it’s like to lead 100-year-old company; he views change is critical to the company’s survival; and he has a history of giving fans what they want. Exactly what is needed at Ford today.
Bottom line, if automakers are going to stay around, they need to get off their collective butts, invest in new technology, and make some things happen. Investments today will allow survival in the future. But you must have the courage to see the future, set a vision, then pursue that vision violently.
I may wish you would have fired Mark Fields a year earlier, Bill Ford, but you’ve taken a step in the right direction. Tough job, but it does make you our Leadership Leader for May.
Milquetoast
John Skipper, President ESPN
It seems everyone on our leader-laggard list this month is whacking people left and right. ESPN recently laid off (that’s fired) about 100 people (10% of the total workforce), most of them on-screen personalities from various shows and reporting efforts. Executives claim it’s a simple branding reposition and not a mandate from parent company Disney.
“These decisions impact talented people who have done great work for our company. I would like to thank all of them for their efforts and their many contributions to ESPN.” — John Skipper
“Dynamic change demands an increased focus on versatility and value, and as a result, we have been engaged in the challenging process of determining the talent—anchors, analysts, reporters, writers and those who handle play-by-play—necessary to meet those demands,” Skipper wrote to employees.
What a load of crap. The reasons are always simple for layoffs. Someone made some mistakes along the way, and the answer to those mistakes is short-term money-saving via reduce payroll. ESPN claims to have outlined a new strategy for the network, including an increased focus on its ESPN app with the multiscreen approach around big events, more live news video, and enhanced video and audio streaming. They also plan to bolster ESPN’s online presence
Look, ESPN has been hemorrhaging subscribers for several years now (roughly 12 million in six years), a natural result of fewer people attached to cable televisions as a revenue source. Considering ESPN pays billions of dollars to various leagues to be able to broadcast these events, they simply didn’t prepare for the sudden decline in revenue. It seems the only people that didn’t realize fewer people are using cable, ergo fewer people are paying for televised events, was ESPN. I knew it, you knew it, my neighbors knew it.
ESPN, however, apparently did not know it. And their negligence in planning directly caused about 100 people to lose their job, many of those were solid, valuable, high performing employees. And here’s the thing; do the math — ESPN pays billions to sports leagues for the right to broadcast. How much of a dent does the salary for 100 employees actually make? This is the same network that signed a nine year $24 billion deal with the NBA. You’ve gotta whack a whole lot more than 100 analysts, reporters and announcers to cover coin like that.
Now, let me throw a wrinkle into this: ESPN is not our Leadership Milquetoast this month because they laid off hundred people. No, they are our milquetoast because they still haven’t fixed their business model, and this layoff is a distraction that further postpones any real and meaningful shift in strategy. Just do something is a juvenile response to a valid business need, and confuses activity with meaningful change.
It’s that ridiculous activity — instead of impactful business change — that brings ESPN and John Skipper into our spotlight, pulling down our dubious Leadership Milquetoast position for May.
Laggard
Brian Cornell, CEO Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT)
What the hell are you doing, Brian?? TGT stock has been on a vicious two-year decline, currently trading at a five year low, a market-cap reduction of almost $13 billion. Waiting until just after the nick of time to exit the Canadian market, that was a $5B+ write-down. Same store sales and total revenue have fallen for four consecutive quarters.
All of this after Cornell announced a two-year turnaround plan in 2015, committing to cut costs, prioritize merchandise categories, increase grocery and online sales and open more small-format stores.
Oops… seems he now needs a turnaround plan for the turnaround plan.
At a time when innovation and strategy need to be at the forefront, Cornell whacked Casey Carl, Target’s Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer. It seems Carl, a 20-year Target veteran, was a bit too innovative and strategic. Now, the strategy is to copy Wal-Mart — remodeling existing stores, investing billions in lower prices, and hoping really hard that online sales increase (that last one wasn’t Wal-Mart’s, just Target’s).
Speaking of online… did I mention that Jason Goldberger, originally president of target.com, was pushed out of the chief digital officer role? Those duties transferred to the incumbent CIO. Now, I like CIOs as much as the next guy, but unsure how much that role aligns with the intense marketing and online savvy necessary for Target to catch up to Wal-Mart with its digital strategy.
And while we’re discussing whacking folks… don’t forget the departure of the Chief Marketing Officer, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Human Resources Officer, Chief Stores Officer and the head of the grocery division; since Cornell’s ascension, only 2 of the 11 executive leadership team remain. Lots of things can cause such a leadership turnover, but most of them are bad, and all point to the CEO.
This will obviously be a test of patience for Target’s Board of Directors. Unlike Ford, this month’s Leadership Leader, the Target board has demonstrated a penchant for moving way too slowly on CEO decisions. Their undeserved patience helps vault Brian Cornell into our Leadership Laggard for May.
