We’re going to give a short well-done to Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) for their handling of their internet troll employee who made an ass of himself on Christmas Eve.
Full disclosure: ADM is a client of ours.
ADM quickly concluded that Brad Shultz’s bigotry was eclipsed by his stupidity in linking his views to his employer on social media, and directed Brad to the nearest unemployment line.
ADM said, “…these remarks are unacceptable and do not reflect ADM’s values.” Works for us.
This is a culture issue, and leadership owns the culture. You don’t need toxic influences in your organization; when you discover them, get rid of them… immediately.
Reminds me of a T-shirt I wore a few years ago: “Dads Against Daughters Dating…Shoot the first one; word will spread.”
Nice shootin’, ADM. Word will spread. You’re this month’s Leadership Leader.
Leadership Milquetoast
It’s only been a couple of months since Twitter’s SVP of Engineering, Alex Roetter, was our Leadership Milquetoast for his empty rhetoric about diversity and his subsequent non-apology for being a crappy communicator. Not picking on Twitter, but it looks like they’ve missed another opportunity in the diversity department.
The diversity most important to an organization is diversity of thought. You need teams that can strategize, plan and approach problems from different perspectives. You get that from people with diverse backgrounds and experiences, independent of the color of their skin.
Diversity isn’t about affirmative action; it’s about making something great out of an often strange collection of people inspired to make something greater than themselves successful. And that takes leadership.
And so, Twitter missed the opportunity to make a bold statement about diversity when they brought in an old white guy as their new vice president for diversity and inclusion. While Jeffery Siminoff may be qualified for the job – some of us old white guys are actually all for diversity of thought – his hiring did nothing to close the disparity gap between the company and its users.
It shouldn’t matter that almost three quarters of Twitter’s leadership positions are held by whites, but obviously it does to their diversity critics. What should matter to Twitter is that their detractors seem to equate diversity with racial parity, and they seem to think that it would make things better if their employee demographics mirrored that of their users. If Twitter thinks they’re raising the bar on diversity and inclusion, they’re not listening.
Twitter missed a golden opportunity to do more than talk a good game. For that, they get this month’s nod for the Leadership Milquetoast.
Leadership Laggard
Something must be amiss in McDonald’s marketing machine. They just spent a pile-o-cash with at least seven ad agencies to update packaging for its “fun and modern brand.” Matt Biespiel, senior director of global marketing described it as “a progressive way to turn our packaging into art.”
As they sat around the McTable brainstorming, didn’t a single person think, “if we made better and more healthy food, would more people would buy it?” If so, why didn’t they bring it up? Even acknowledging the importance of employee loyalty, this is a classic case of group-think, and that’s a leadership failure.
We don’t deny McDonald’s made some good menu choices recently; they needed to – and not just to attract millennials. And hopefully their planned restaurant upgrade means the seats aren’t ergonomically designed to be uncomfortable.
But really… no one cares about the brown bag it comes in. That’s just the lipstick on the pig. The bags end up in the back floorboard of the car or on the side of the road, anyway.
McDonald’s says the new packaging reflects the leadership of new CEO Steve Easterbrook – simple yet bold. Describe it anyway you want, we think Biespiel and his yes-men saw a way to impress his boss, and his boss let them.
Easterbrook is new – and arguably doing a pretty good job. This month’s Leadership Laggard is Matt Biespiel for letting his team waste so much McMoney and McTime on something customers don’t care about in the first place.
Should we use 360-degree evaluations to determine how well our managers are “managing?”
My answer will be brief, followed by some applicable humor (well, it’s funny to me anyway…)
Management efficacy should be evaluated by measurement, not popularity. Don’t ask the question if the answers aren’t actionable. In other words, if the manager is kicking butt on all measurable fronts, what would you have him or her change if a survey came back with suggestions?
The right answer, of course, is nothing.
Having said that…
What would you like to hear them say?
Three friends of Thibodeaux’s from the local Cajun congregation were asked, “When you’re in your casket, and friends and congregation members are mourning over you, what would you like dem to say?
“Jacque said: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful husband, a fine spiritual leader, and a great family man.
Ovide commented: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful teacher and servant of God who made a huge difference in people’s lives.
“Then it was Boudreaux’s turn to said somethon: “I’d like dem to say, “Look at dat!!!!, he’s moving!”
Measure managers by results, not popularity or wishful thinking.
“Teamwork” has forever been a buzzword in our business world. It seems that the importance of having employees work as a team has been promoted in every available piece of management literature. Nevertheless, we at the top have routinely had a hard time “playing well together,” despite the fact that the need is more pronounced now than ever before.
I used to work for a CEO who believed that the definition of a “team” was a group of people doing things his way. It’d be funnier if it didn’t apply so well to so many…
Who cares?? Why does it matter, as long as I do my job and am good at it?? Some arguments for executive teamwork:
External Demands. Worldwide competition and changing financial markets make it necessary for the organization to be on the alert at all times – the pressure to innovate, apart from the company’s organizational health, is no longer the CEO’s sole purview.
Internal Demands. Diversifying businesses require differently-skilled managers to lead varied business units. We can no longer be “all things to all people.”
Succession.An executive team is usually – and naturally – the best selection pool for future executives, as individual members would have first-hand knowledge of the essential competencies of a potential top leader within our current organization.
Exemplary Behavior. In addition, top executives working well together sends a potent signal down the line. ‘Nuff said.
So why, then, if we understand the need, do top executives often fail to form a team?
Consider the source: Managers who have climbed the ladder’s upper rungs aretypically strong-willed, ambitious, and experts in their own right. These characteristics, though obviously allowing them to successfully rise within an organization, may also pave the way for an unwillingness to show weakness, overprotective behavior for their functions, and viewing other executives as “competition” in their quest for the Holy Grail: The CEO’s chair.
Personality and behaviors can be difficult to change once they are really entrenched, so forming a true executive team becomes a difficult undertaking.
Ultimately, the CEO must establish a climate that is favorable to developing an executive team. S/He can do this by:
Selecting discriminately. Normally, “upper management” can be a big group, consisting of the CEO, COO, CFO, various heads of important functional areas, and other political savvy or otherwise valuable individuals. Limiting the number of members to 8-10 enables all to develop healthier relationships, to say nothing of the success of subsequent meetings.
Communicating unequivocally. The CEO must ensure that all executive team members understand the vision, mission, strategies, and goals of the organization in no uncertain terms. There can be no “highway” option here.
Ensuring Commitment. If there is no involvement, there is no commitment.
Clarifying Roles. The CEO must clearly set the mandate for each executive team member. This involves defining strategic responsibilities (not operational), areas of cooperation, interdependence, information-sharing, and decision-making processes.
Ensuring safety. Establishing an atmosphere where members can show their weaknesses, disagree, and express their opinions openly without fear of losing face and authority can induce team creativity. It also promotes increased trust among the members.
Emphasizing Shared Accountability. Rewarding solely individual performance undermines the formation of a cohesive executive team whose performance is supposed to be assessed collectively. Collective measures of profitability and other gains are crucial.
Having Courage to weed out non-performers. It’s perfect, of course, if all executives would deliver on their responsibilities – but, nobody’s perfect. If an executive hinders the team’s progress or is disrupting the team’s process, then it might be time to let that member go. Make that decision as certain as it would be if s/he were functionally incompetent.
I worked with the CEO of a large services company. A VP member of his senior staff was a brilliant P&L manager — but entirely destructive to the team. We coached, cajoled, taught, pleaded, and begged. This senior manager would not be swayed — he was clearly “on the dark side,” and wanted to stay. He wielded his P&L performance as a Kevlar vest.
The CEO fired him, and you could hear the air being sucked out of all the collective guts of the senior team. The boss was serious, and now the team was, too.
Creating a synergetic team of top leaders in an organization is tough work. Selecting, managing personalities and relationships, establishing and enforcing norms, and developingexecutive team members is a complex process – but it can be done.
The payback is huge. You know that, of course, if you took the time to read this whole posting. Stop looking for a magic bullet — it takes effort and commitment, and in all likelihood, some tough decisions.
Let me know if I can help.
Executive Leadership Consulting That Works
Triangle Performance, LLC is a solutions-focused management consulting firm specializing in executive improvement, leadership development, and organizational effectiveness. Contact us today to get started on your journey to improving your leadership skills.
Disclaimer: there is actually a Steeler fan in our firm. Background checks and drug screens aren’t foolproof…
Showing vulnerability and admitting you need help are a couple of leadership traits that sound Pollyanna-ish, especially in the rough-and-tough, real world corporate arena. Certainly not something you’d expect to see in professional sports.
Say what you want about the Pittsburgh Steelers’ quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, but by taking himself out of the Nov 29th game against Seattle for “concussion-like symptoms,” he took a stand that probably appeared weak to many who were watching. I’m sure there were certainly a lot of younger QBs paying attention.
As it turned out, he did have a concussion, and at least one of us is glad he’s better this week.
More remarkably, he admitted he needed help. Even though his reputation as the team’s leader might suffer, he knew the risk of continuing on a path that could have more severe consequences. If you can’t see a corporate leadership version of this lesson, you must be new to the C-level.
What Ben said to other – younger and less experienced – leaders who are in trouble but hate to let their teams down: it’s okay to admit you’re only human. What more senior corporate leaders need to share with their younger and less experienced leaders: sometimes you have to ask for help.
Showing vulnerability to your team builds trust. It’s not the same as showing a lack of confidence; it means you’re paying attention to your team’s needs, and you recognize you need help in meeting them.
Thanks for the reminder, Ben. You’re this month’s pick as our Leadership Leader.
Leadership Milquetoast
Mark Zuckerberg of facebook fame is receiving a lot of positive press for announcing his give-away… seems the birth of his daughter Max spurred him to tell the world that he’ll give away 99% of his facebook wealth—some $40+ BILLION.
Making such an announcement was impressive, and he could have been a philanthropic standard-bearer of epic proportions. Could have been.
The reality is, he’s simply transferring that money to a for-profit LLC, where he’ll have complete control of how every nickel is spent. Further, he’s made no commitment that the money will even go to non-profits; in fact, he included a statement that any profits made will be funneled back into the LLC for future investments. So, there will be potential profits. Doesn’t sound charitable to me.
Look, it’s his money, he can do whatever he likes. I mean that sincerely. But to publish this letter to his child, saying “We will give 99% of our Facebook shares… during our lives to advance this mission,” implies clearly that he will be giving. In reality, he’s actually keeping, and intends to invest entirely as he sees fit.
Again, his money, his decision. He owes no one anything. But if you say “give,” you should give. Investment bankers don’t give, they invest. Private equity firms don’t give, they buy. Words matter, and Zuckerberg’s words don’t match up. It’s not a bad thing, just not necessarily a good thing.
Congratulations for the giving-that-isn’t, Mark. It won you this month’s Leadership Milquetoast.
Leadership Laggard
I’m a veteran. As are the others working with me at Triangle Performance. As such, we have a special place in our hearts for veterans. You would think that an agency named “Veterans Affairs” would feel the same way.
These performance-driven bonuses were paid to such superstars as:
The execs leading the Denver construction goat-rope, more than $1B over budget (just a rounding error, eh?), including $5 grand to the manager specifically named in the investigation;
The doc in Wisconsin, dubbed the “Candy Man” because of his prolific over-prescribing, received a bonus, as did his pharmacy supervisor.
In Augusta, Georgia, the VA awarded some bonus bucks to a dude who quit after drinking and driving a government vehicle (one fatality), but was rehired a year later.
Accountability is one-deep; VA Secretary dafsRobert McDonald (perhaps RONALD McDonald would be more appropriate?) says the VA is all better, fixed, and would improve even more if he could just get a bigger budget with fewer restrictions on how to spend it. Wait… what??
Congratulations to you, Ronald Robert, as this month’s Leadership Laggard.
That’s a big deal, to be sure, but acquisition size alone can’t earn you a spot on our Leadership Leader board. No, it’s how Sorenson did it that matters.
Originally, he declined to pursue Starwood (they were publicly seeking a suitor). His reasons? One, Marriott was doing really well. Why mess with success? But as importantly, it was inconsistent with their proven acquisition strategy of $100-$200M deals, earnings accretive by second year.
Why the change? It wasn’t simply opportunistic, it was a change in thinking. Given the opportunity to become the largest hotelier in the cosmos, Sorenson reconsidered their acquisition strategy. In the face of new and material information, he changed his mind.And he still lives. Whouldathunkit? Other CEOs should give it a try…
Congrats, Mr. Sorenson; you are our Leadership Leader for November.
Twitter does a better job than most at diversity initiatives (the real ones). Roetter, unfortunately, didn’t get the memo. His statement about “not lowering the bar” means that he supports diversity as long as it takes no more effort than the current approaches to hiring and advancement.
It’s like people who say “I support the troops” when they’ve neither served nor done anything other than make that comment to show their support. It’s simply rhetoric, used to demonstrate support to others while taking no real action of your own.
In other words, it’s meaningless crap, much like Roetter’s statement.
But this month’s Leadership Milquetoast goes to Roetter for a different reason. You see, he later “apologized” for his meaningless-crap comment above. Without actually apologizing. He said the words, but blew the opportunity to actually apologize. He said:
“The comments attributed to me aren’t an accurate or complete facsimile, but they
conveyed a meaning that was very far from what I intended, which means I did a poor job communicating. That resulted in unnecessary pain and confusion, for which I am truly sorry.”So, he basically says the quotes attributed to me aren’t verbatim, but whatever I said wasn’t what I meant. I’m sorry for your pain and confusion, not for my dumber-than-dirt meaningless-crap comments.
Congratulations for that apology-that-isn’t, Alex. It won you this month’s Leadership Milquetoast.
Leadership Laggard
Bah Humbug!
As tempting as it was to choose a laggard from the parade of presidential debate participants, I didn’t want to go down a road that could alienate some of you. OK, that’s not the real reason (there were just too many laggards to choose from), but it sounded good.
So I picked a Christmas controversy. No, not a holiday controversy; a Christmas one. As far as I know, Santa Claus isn’t associated with any other holiday.
Get this, a New Jersey mall is charging at least $35 to sit on Santa’s lap this year.
Cherry Hill Mall’s management, the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust (PREIT), claims the experience will be worth the money, and says if you don’t want to pay, you can go to one of the six other malls it owns in the Philadelphia area.
In fact, at Cherry Hill Mall, you can’t even get a glimpse of Santa without paying your money. He’s wholly contained in an elaborate North Pole scene erected without windows inside the mall’s atrium. Parents are naturally in an uproar about the reverse lap dance scheme that sounds more like a bad made-for-TV movie than a suburban holiday tradition.
Really? What marketing genius thought that was a good idea?
Or better yet, what kind of groupthink culture could have come up with the plan without ever considering the consumer blowback – not to mention the ridiculing in the press.
Accountability is one-deep, so I’m going to lay this debacle squarely at the feet of the man who owns the culture. Congratulations to PREIT’s CEO, Joe Coradino, as this month’s Leadership Laggard.
Dan Wolterman, CEO for Memorial Hermann Healthcare System in Houston, announced his retirement, scheduled for just over a year from now.
Now, a retirement is seldom cause for accolades. This one, however, bears further mention, and is our clear choice for October’s Leadership Leader.
Full disclosure: Memorial Hermann is a client of ours.
You see, though Mr. Wolterman has been an incredibly successful CEO, his departure has been long-planned, and even then he’s announced it a full year in advance. Not only that, but this outfit has serious bench strength; if I were a betting man, I’d wager chances are good that an internal candidate could be selected as his successor.
But even if an outsider is hired (they have retained Spencer Stuart for the search), the point is this: They (the Board) have choices. They get to consider internal candidates seriously, along with some of the best available external executives in the country. Wolterman takes developing leaders seriously, and he’s got serious talent in his HR/OD shops to support that objective.
There’s some real lessons for succession here:
Go out at the top of your game,
Always be developing leaders for advancement, and
Make sure you have choices when identifying successors (at any level).
Wow, Captain Obvious, did you come up with that on your own? That landmark understatement earned you this month’s Leadership Milquetoast accolades…
He followed with “Our focus now is really on finishing the projects we have under construction, getting our costs down and becoming more balanced.”
I’m curious—isn’t that what we should be doing all the time? Follow through on projects, manage costs appropriately, and make sure our business is on track? History is replete with skeletons of companies thinking their business model would never be altered. Did the Production side of the industry believe that $100 oil was forever, like the post office stamp? In the history of the oil business, when have oil prices not fluctuated wildly and cyclically?
Worldwide demand is significantly lower than anticipated, reducing overcapacity is an expensive game of chicken, and today’s oil price is just under $50, almost 60% less than last summer’s $120. Rig counts are at the lowest since we began tracking them (almost 30 years).
Over 200,000 employees cut, mostly from oilfield service companies. Producers’ employees will likely be next. Balance sheets have been decimated, or at the least damaged, making borrowing nonexistent or damned expensive. No less than 20 publicly-traded companies have filed bankruptcy (either reorg or liquidation), along with dozens of smaller, privately-held outfits. And when banks reevaluate reserves this quarter, those filings will undoubtedly increase.
So, yes, Watson… I believe maybe “we” did get a little sloppy over the past few years.
Leadership Laggard
Another easy one this month. Too many to choose from, so we called it a split-decision. A tie.
And believe it or not, I’m not even talking about ex-CEO Marty Winterkorn’s resignation over the successful multi-year VW conspiracy to cheat at emissions testing. After all (if we believe him), he was not personally aware of any wrongdoing and “was stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.” Nor does the fact that he’s going to make upwards of $48M this year for it necessarily make him a bad person.
What I’m talking about is the fact that Winterkorn is still CEO of VW’s largest shareholder (holding company Porsche SE) and Chairman of VW’s luxury brand Audi, and Porche’s CEO is coming over to be VW’s CEO “to change the culture”. I could confuse myself again by describing the Porche and VW cronies (like Hans Dieter Pötsch who is the CFO for both VW and Porsche) that are still in senior leadership roles, but that would mean I have an opinion other than:
Ethical breaches like this start at the top. This was not borne out of some lower-level manager, supervisor, or individual contributor. The senior leadership knew – through specific words, approval of resources to commit the fraud, or indirectly through a win-at-all-costs culture – but, unless that leadership team has wicked personal software skills, this ethics breach goes way down through the Porsche-VW organization.
CEOs own ethical behavior, pure and simple, and this is a leadership fail.
And this month’s Co-Loser: since we featured Jeff Smisek’s operating failures at United AIrlines, we should include him this month as a failure… again. This time, he abruptly resigned after allegedly (used tongue-in-cheek) conspiring with David Samson of the NY/NJ Port Authority. Seems Jeffie-boy wanted a reduction in United’s lease for their facilities in Newark, and Samson needed a direct flight to Columbia where he had a vacation home. Smisek gets his costs savings, Samson gets his flights. A match made in heaven. Or maybe that other, more asbestos-friendly place.Dead-last in J.D. Power’s 2014 survey of customer satisfaction, still no labor agreement for 30,000 some-odd flight attendants and mechanics, Smisek failed at every single turn that mattered to customers and employees. I’m a diehard capitalist, but shareholders cannot be the only ones happy with a company’s leadership, and they have only been reasonably satisfied for the last few months.
Of course, his resignation means he pulls in another $5M in severance, plus another $15-20M in miscellaneous consideration. Plus free first-class seats for life. United did, however, cancel his gym membership. Apparently Smisek’s Pilates was their Maginot Line…
Good riddance, Jeff Smisek. I’d wish you well, but you’ve left such a trail of carnage in your wake that I’m just not feeling the love. How about we simply say “good bye,” and leave it at that?
