by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Mar 5, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
Do you want to win, or to change behavior?
This is a question I frequently ask clients when discussing how best to approach someone in a (usually) tough conversation or conflict. As leaders, if we want to “win” the discussion, we simply flash our business card, tell ’em “because I said so” and to get back their butts back to work. Immediately solves the issue at hand.
But what problems does the jerk-boss approach create in its wake? Does it fix enough to overcome the negativity of the process? Does it actually change behavior?
Yeah, no. It certainly doesn’t change behavior. At best, it creates mindless drones, waiting for another direct order to determine what they should do. At worst, it creates a disgruntled malcontent, sowing discord and malice among peers and blindly adhering to your rules, even if they damage the outcome. A behavior I call malicious compliance. You’ve seen it before — it’s when an employee does something they clearly know was wrong, and when asked ‘why,’ quickly responds “Because you told me to.”
We know these people. Bad news, hoss; we likely created them.
If you want to win, you can. Instructions above (jerk). If you want to change behavior, it’s as simple, just a bit more involved. Direct communications are always fine, just remember that if you want someone to change their behavior willingly, you’ll need to communicate in a manner they can accept and internalize. In all likelihood, yelling, screaming and saying “because I said so” are not “…a manner they can accept and internalize.”
Remember, it’s a clear sign of weakness if you must rely solely on your position to get things done. We can pay someone a whole lot less for those same results.
A good manager never has to remind others of his or her position; a good subordinate never has to ask.
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jan 28, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
CNNMoney.com recently reported the results of a surprising survey: Year-to-date CEO departures are up almost 10% from 2005.
Up almost 10%. That’s a big increase.
Ford Motor Company, HP (God, what a mess!), Viacom… all these are high profile organziations with recent chief executive changes; the truth is, however, that many of the almost-1,000 CEOs that left their jobs this year were from companies much like yours. Not necessarily a newsworthy event to CNNMoney.com, but significant nonetheless.
Why are these CEOs leaving, I wonder? The CEO job is, purportedly, the pinnacle — the crowning achievement of a management professional. Why, then, the departures? Is it disappointment? Apathy? Lack of motivation? Excessive oversight?
Hard to say, since it’s likely all this and still more. The attention on the CEO’s office has never been greater; the penalty for failures, even short term ‘blips,’ can be painful. New SEC oversight for publicly-traded companies has supported short-term positions in leadership — an unintended consequence of recent legislation.
During a recent CEO search, most candidates are sizing up my opportunity much more closely than I’ve ever seen in the past. they want details on the predecessor’s successes and failures, reasons for leaving, and detailed background on Boards of Directors. All this is good, of course, as it increases the likelihood of a solid match. It also, however, points out that the CEO position is no longer this “holy grail” of an opportunity; people are evaluating it much more for personal fit and likelihood of success, regardless of short-term financial value.
Regardless, it’s an issue we must contend with. Short-term results begats short-term leadership… no way around that. Should our focus really be so close-in, or should we create, manage, and lead our organizations for the longer haul??
Can we do that with frequent changes at the CEO chair?
I don’t know for sure… but I doubt it.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jan 25, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Uncategorized
A look at relevant leadership news this past week.
The government shutdown continues. The Libertarian in me says this should be great, since it means fewer government employees kicking around. The reality is, regardless of political persuasion, an emotional impasse like this represents an abject failure in leadership. All of the leadership.
Picture a for-profit company, with co-owners, each retaining exactly 50% ownership. Unable to agree on a specific, smaller strategy, they refuse to deliver anything to their customers until they each get what they want. Oh yeah, and they tell employees they won’t be paid, but it’s the other owner’s fault.
Kick all the bums out.
Buzzfeed is laying off employees… again. This time, 15% (200+) are gonna get pink slips.
“BuzzFeed’s board recently agreed that the company needs to start turning profits…” Now that’s some cutting-edge thinking right there, Lou.
The very definition of lousy leadership? Nearly a decade in a services business (defiitely not a startup), $300M in revenue with double-digit annual growth, NEVER made a profit.
Wait! New strategy… let’s save our way to prosperity by laying off revenue machines, er, I mean “employees.” No one’s ever tried that before…
Sears continues its meteoric demise. Like a train wreck, this shit’s hard to watch. While unsecured creditors say they’ve been bamboozled, Eddie Lampert says he’s been an oasis in a desert, providing much-needed financing at critical times. It’s sorta like the illicit “fence” that gives you 10 cents on the dollar for your valuable stuff, so you can keep making dope buys. Both of you may be complicit, but the fence is the only one making all the money.
On a side note, having witnessed this myself, the only people that come out of a bankruptcy smelling like roses are the law firms. Keri Grant, a paralegal for Weil Gotshal & Manges (sounds like a punk rock band) on the Sears case, billed almost $175,000 in November at $405/hr. According to salary.com, a senior-level paralegal makes $33-41/hr. Not a shabby delta in rates for a punk rock band.
Walgreens pays $269M (that’s million) because they cheated.
Client: How much for some of that newfangled #ethics consulting and training?
Consultant: I dunno, around $100k I suppose…
Client: What?!? Sorry, waaaay to rich for my blood… we’ll DIY.
As my granddaughter used to say, “okey-dokey artichokey…”
Oracle continues the Silicon Valley trend of tech companies. allegedly low-balling and under-promoting women and people of color. They stand to join an esteemed list of companies, including facebook, twitter, google, et al.
The part that amazes me… with all this alleged egregious behavior, these firms continue to win best-places-to-work and related awards. Oracle even has a specific webpage devoted to “Corporate Citizenship Awards,” which include (just a few):
- Best Diversity Company by Diversity Careers magazine
- Top 50 Employers for women engineers by readers of Woman Engineer magazine
- Top 50 Employers for workforce diversity by readers of Workforce Diversity for Engineering and IT Professionals magazine
- Top 50 Employers by readers of Equal Opportunity magazine
All the awards mentioned above occurred during the time period the Feds have alleged Oracle was systemically underpaying women, blacks, and Asians relative to their peers (to the tune of some $400M+)
Give me an old-fashioned, Houston-based oil & gas firm where – surprisingly to some – diversity is real.
On a more positive note, Ford Motor Company workers will receive profit-sharing bonuses of over $7,500 per worker. This even after Ford’s Q4 operating loss. All the while rival GM is laying off over 15% of its workforce and shuttering a half-dozen plants.
Not to confuse Ford’s CEO Jim Hackett of being a pushover; he’s made it clear that 2018 sucked big, and he wants everyone (employees) involved to “…bury the year (2018) in a deep grave, grieve over what might have been and become super focused on meeting, and, in fact, exceeding this year’s plan.”
I think he means it.
That’s a wrap for This Week in the Rear.
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jan 14, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Did you get the things accomplished that you set out to do at the beginning of the year? Most of them? Some of them? Any of them??
If so, great. If not, why not? Now–right now–is the best time to answer the following questions:
- Regarding those things successful last year, what made them so? Was it because of me and my leadership, or in spite of? For those I lead, have I appropriately recognized their successes?
- If we failed to accomplish some of our plans, goals, or objectives… why? Was it because we failed to do something we could have done, or were there really—really–circumstances beyond our control (honesty is important on this one)? For those I lead who performed less than satisfactorily, am I addressing that performance appropriately?
While you’re asking questions, how have you performed as a leader? Have you asked anyone… like those you lead? If not, now’s the perfect time. And I don’t mean just “hey, Jane, how am I doing as a leader?” Strangely enough, that might not actually elicit a meaningful response.
Consider a 360 survey if you haven’t had one, or haven’t had one recently. I’ve had lots of clients asking for them of late, so something good must be in the water.
Alternatively, you can DIY with something simple, like Start, Stop, Continue.
Sit down, one on one, with those you lead directly. Tell them you want—need–their feedback to improve, and to make their jobs better (and likely easier). Tell them you’ll be asking three questions, and you would like at least one input or response for each question. Then ask…
What should I Start doing that I’m not doing now?
What should I Stop doing that doesn’t seem to help you or others?
What should I Continue doing that you feel is positive?
Ask the questions, then shut up while they answer. No defensive drilling down, no “but what about…?” comments, nothing but “thank you for that input.”
If you’d like a simple worksheet for this, you can download by clicking on the image to the left.
And don’t forget to follow up with them in a few months to see how you’re doing with their inputs.
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jan 9, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Speaking with a potential client, she asked about the process to “rebuild” their culture. 
The ensuing chat was interesting (I would call it “great!,” but the client hasn’t signed on yet…!)
First, culture isn’t actually “rebuilt.” It exists — in complete form — in every organization.
You may not LIKE the culture, may want to CHANGE the culture, but remember: It’s a change management effort, and has all the corresponding efforts and challenges of any organizational change process.
A specific culture can START anywhere within an organization, though it can only really be DRIVEN by the top. The top controls processes, most extrinsic motivations, environments, and sets values and acceptable behavior (the whole ‘lead by example’ thingy).
To change culture, all levers must be congruent… policies must match behaviors; values must be supported by procedures and accepted norms; compensation must match desired behaviors, actions, and results.
They’ve all got to work together, and when changing a culture (vs. maintaining), you really can’t afford even small inconsistencies.Without over-stressing my keyboarding skills, desired culture change will never take place via “programs,” off-sites, workshops or other isolated events.
It’s gotta be the whole enchilada. It must have complete support of the senior-most staff, and necessarily reinforced (in part) via performance management.
In other words, it’s kind of a big deal…
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Nov 28, 2018 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
I received the following question from an HR Director in the midwest:
Contingency Fees: What’s the value? It seems that the fee percentage in permanent placement ranges from sometimes less than 20% to 30%+ of the candidate’s first years salary.
So, what’s the diff??
Where’s the value change between the 20% firms and the 30% firms?
Though I do not conduct contingency searches today, I spent many years in the Director/VP desk wondering much the same thing…
The answer, however, isn’t mysterious.
The difference is frequently just timing. If a recruiter or firm’s current production is down, volume low, or revenue a bit off for the week/month/quarter, a firm may take closer to 20% for that particular search, instead of their customary 25-30%.
Perhaps they already have a couple of ringer candidates in the hopper, and they low-ball just to close a quick sale.
Maybe, they’re new at the business, and right now they just need to pay the bills (surely I don’t have to make all the obvious cautions here…).
Maybe, they’re just stupid. I doubt that, but let’s include all possible answers.
Now, having said that…Here’s the part that really gets me:
I spent a good many years in senior-most HR roles. A manager/company that will quibble over 5-10% on a $100K search for a valuable contributor to their organization, is so colossally short-sided and pound-foolish that it takes my breath away.
A hiring company’s bigger concern should not be whether the fee is 20%, 25%, or 30%; or whether the fee includes just base comp, base plus bonus, etc… The hiring company’s sole concern — SOLE concern — should be “Can this firm deliver one or more solid, successful candidates to fill my serious need?”
If not, then 15-20% is certainly no bargain; if yes, then we’re spending way too much time quibbling over a few thousand dollars.
Just my thoughts…
