I was recently involved (as a participant) in a strategic planning event; the facilitator, Alan Pue, was discussing many of the ways that planning — and its subsequent implementation — can go wrong.
In part of that commentary, he mentioned as an example a firm’s inability to adapt to a necessary change in the market, and how that inability adversely affected their performance. Alan wasn’t sympathetic to their plight, nor even empathetic. In fact, he made it clear that the problem was their own doing, and the resultant pain was of their own creation. They did it to themselves, have no one else to blame, and these lessons — though valuable — can be painful.
I agree.
When we act so dumb in business that we can’t get out of our own way, the resultant pain is our own doing. Sort of like touching a hot stove, we hopefully learn that we shouldn’t do that again.
F-16 Fighting Falcon Thunderbirds with the U.S. Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron perform aerial maneuvers Aug. 3, 2014, during the Experimental Aircraft Association’s annual AirVenture event in Oshkosh, Wis. (U.S. Air Force photo/Master Sgt. Stan Parker)
As a leader in your organization, who’s got your back? Are the people you work with watching out for you, or do you find yourself covering your six to keep from being stabbed in the back?
I’m a huge supporter of the new “Got Your Six” campaign to unite nonprofit, Hollywood, and government partners to support our veterans. The commercials touch my heart when they explain how “got your six” means we’ve got our veterans’ backs as they transition from military service to civilian life.
They also remind me of lessons I learned in pilot training about how to keep enemy pilots from maneuvering to my ultimate position of vulnerability: my six o’clock position – the blind spot directly behind me where I wouldn’t recognize I was about to be killed. Translated into corporate language: where someone is about to make us look stupid or incompetent without us realizing it.
I’ve got the stick for a minute.
“Covering your six” is what pilots have wingmen for. Wingmen fly behind and above (or below) their lead to make sure no one sneaks up on them. Pretty easy analogy to apply to the corporate world, but who’s really going to watch your back in the dog-eat-dog of office politics?
Your followers, that’s who. The ones who trust you and know you have their backs as well.
When a leader is intentional about creating an environment of trust and cooperation in the office, coworkers watch out for each because they want the organization to succeed. It’s much more difficult to blindside an entire group of people watching out for each other than it is an individual outside the circle of trust.
You build that environment of trust by having non-negotiable integrity and demonstrating you both care more about your employees than you do yourself (compassion), and you can and will use their efforts for the good of the organization (competence).
You instill that trust only if your actions are consistent with your words. If you’re one who talks about others behind their backs, you can assume you’re also being talked about. If there is even a hint that you might sacrifice one of your people for your benefit, you’re headed for a Julius Caesar ending.
Now, I’m not Pollyannaish, and I’ve certainly worked in places where the motto was something like “it’s not enough that I succeed; others must fail.” Competition can be fierce, and insecure or power-hungry people backstab from a variety of motivations.
But you can’t focus on helping your employees achieve great things if you’re always sitting in the corner with your back to the wall. You’ve got to be out there doing your best for them, trusting them the way they trust you. That’s the leader’s role, and while it’s vulnerable, it doesn’t have to be unsafe.
Goals On Dartboard Shows Aspired Objectives And Desired Targets
– it’s not the same as setting goals.
I hate goal setting. The whole business of it.
That’s why I was surprised by a conversation I had with my daughter a couple of weeks ago. Home from her fall semester, she was describing her goals to me – her grad school goals, financial goals, career goals, life goals – and I was amazed. When I asked how she learned about goal setting, she unexpectedly answered, “from you, of course.” I didn’t know I’d passed goal setting to another generation, because (if I hadn’t mentioned it) I hate goal setting.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate setting goals; it’s the only way I know I’m on track to where I want to go. But there’s so much of the institutional process of individual goal setting that is all about process and almost nothing about the accomplishment of what really matters.
I’ve got the stick for a minute.
Leaders who have vision and can translate it into an executable plan that followers buy into can be the Holy Grail to an organization. On the down side, results can easily be torpedoed by the intermediate level managers who don’t know how to get the people who actually DO work to set performance and developmental goals that support that vision and plan.
I would propose that few leaders have a good grasp on the goals his/her workforce sets. That doesn’t mean they aren’t held accountable for their workforce’s results. It’s past time to get involved.
As 2015 begins, we’re all being encouraged (or required) to set goals for the coming year. We all know what SMART goals are: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound. I prefer clear, concise, actionable, and tied to organizational performance, but that would require a new acronym (C-CAT would only appeal to a very narrow audience).
The problem is that a step in any direction looks like progress to someone who doesn’t know where they’re going. Most organizations are horrible at getting individuals to understand how what they do contributes to organizational success. That breeds mediocrity at best, and sincerely misdirected efforts at worst.
THIS IS IMPORTANT: For the workforce to actually tie their performance to what leaders expect their organizations to do this year, serious effort is required at every level. Leaders and managers have to get more involved in communicating both how their people can contribute to organizational goals and how they can develop into more productive contributors.
STOP asking them to write nebulous performance goals (like “superior customer support measured by no negative customer comments”) and developmental goals (like “take an online course on how to get along with others”). They can easily meet those goals with no actual benefit to your organizational goals whatsoever.
Jack Welch said that before you’re a leader, success is all about growing yourself; when you become a leader, success is all about growing others. For those of you who think you’re leading, it’s about time you get more interested in helping others set meaningful goals than in setting your own.
I looked up from my desk the other day and noticed (again) a retirement present from a good friend and co-worker that says, “It is what it is.” Too often, I hear that phrase uttered in a tone of voice that conveys resignation to an unpleasant situation or acceptance of defeat. It doesn’t have to be.
As leaders, a key to success is in understanding the last part of the sentence: “…what it is.” It might be something we have control over, something we can only influence, or something that affects us and our people but is out of our hands. How quickly we ascertain which of the three It is, and how we communicate that to those who work for and with us often determines whether we (the royal we) are going to rise above the challenge.
I’ve got the stick for a minute.
In a past life, I commanded an organization responsible for deploying personnel to all parts of Europe and Africa. We were too short staffed in certain specialties to do what were we being asked to do, and getting additional manpower was out of our control. What was in our control was how we used the personnel we had. Instead of being resigned to playing the victim to asymmetric workload distribution between specialties, we developed an aggressive cross-training program that enabled the willing but underemployed to team with those who were in danger of burning out. As a result, we built a greater number of very capable, cross-functional teams that were scalable and incredibly efficient to deploy and employ, and we significantly improved morale in the process.
This speaks to three core truths of leadership: leaders create “we” organizations; leaders don’t play the victim; and, leaders help others manage change.
As the chief executive, my job was to instill a sense of shared purpose, creating a “we” organization that excelled at overcoming adversity and delivering client success. Those given additional training knew they’d be asked to work harder but were willing to give their discretionary effort to reduce the burden on their co-workers. If you know your organization has spare band-width in some areas, maybe you can tap into it through a renewed sense of shared purpose.
When leaders fail, they can’t play the victim. I tried so many times to get additional personnel, they called me Kevin de la Mancha. As frustrating as it was, we didn’t sit around and blame others for not being able to accomplish the mission; we got off our morass and found an alternative that gave us control back. If you’re not encouraging your people to find innovative ways to overcome It, they may not think you have what it takes to lead them to greater successes, and they’ll be less likely to follow.
Leaders have to model change resiliency; if you don’t have it at the top, you won’t find it at the bottom. Understanding and anticipating resistance to changing the status quo hierarchical way of tasking made it easier for me to communicate the positive effects we could generate (both up and down the chain of command) and involve those most affected in the implementation plan. When those affected demonstrated their buy-in, it silenced the nay-sayers and motivated others to want to do more work for the good of the team.
How are you dealing with It? Are you resigned to suffer its impact on your organization, or are you aggressively developing alternative strategies to deliver success by giving your people the tools and opportunities they need to exceed expectations?
–if you don’t have it at the top, don’t expect it at the bottom
Regardless of what a company says, how a company deals with ethics and integrity issues directly reflects actual senior management values and loudly communicates those values to its employees.
It was announced this month that Wisconsin-based manufacturer Johnson Controls, Inc.’s board of directors cleared its CEO of unethical behavior (Johnson Controls Dismisses Management-Consultant Firm) after it was revealed he was having an affair with one of his executive management team’s consultants. The board determined that there was no conflict of interest but terminated the long-time consultant’s contract, anyway.
Really?
OK, I have the stick for a minute.
I’m not even going to address the relationship between two consenting adults, or the fact that it appears one is being punished while the other is not. Kind of reminds me of a New Testament story, and I try not to throw stones.
But the statement by the company spokesman stopped me in my tracks: “All allegations involving senior management are referred to the board and handled in accordance with the company’s ethics and integrity policies,” the spokesman said. “The board reviewed the referenced relationship and determined that no conflicts of interest occurred. To avoid any perception or potential future conflicts, management elected to terminate the consulting firm (emphasis added).”
Am I the only one who gets the duplicity of that statement? How can there not be a conflict of interest? The consultant either directly or indirectly worked for the CEO. By conclusively determining that there was no conflict of interest, the board is expecting us (and its employees) to accept at face value that the senior executive who signed the consultant’s check must not have known she was having an affair with his boss. The board would have been predisposed to believe it, because Johnson Controls was named by Ethisphere Institute as a 2014 World’s Most Ethical Company (eight years in a row), so certainly no one on the executive management team would be less than ethical.
So I have some advice for the board: with an issue of this magnitude, actually read the press release and think about how it’s going to be received by your clients, the public, and more importantly, your employees. While a better statement may have addressed the investigation into the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest finding no evidence, actions speak louder than empty words. Instead, you’ve confirmed by your statement that there’s no accountability at senior levels in the company. The lesson you just taught your employees is that ethics are situational and integrity is flexible, so they can now start (if they weren’t already) pencil-whipping ethics and integrity training.
Here’s a little extra advice for the executive management team: I wouldn’t continue to self-nominate Johnson Controls for Ethisphere’s award if you’re not serious about what it means to be an “organization that continues to raise the bar on ethical leadership and corporate behavior.” I’m comfortable stating that any organization that knows its operating with a CEO having an extra-marital relationship with a paid company consultant isn’t raising that bar very high, nor is the CEO demonstrating much in the way of “ethical leadership.”
Integrity is a black and white issue; you either have it or you don’t; it doesn’t come on a graduated scale. How the board deals with conflicts of interest–perceived or substantiated–reflects directly on company and employee values. You can parade all of the awards you want for being the most ethical company in the world, but if that doesn’t start at the top, don’t expect it at the bottom.
I wish I were making this up, but I’m hard pressed to improve on this quote from the CEO himself in a note to his employees concerning the company’s ethics policy: “Acting with integrity allows us to attract and retain outstanding employees, maintain the Company’s ethical reputation and meet the high expectations of our customers, partners and communities. Our securely rooted ethical culture gives us a competitive advantage.”
What’s the optimum number of direct reports? How many people should a single manager have working for them? What we are referring to, of course, is “Span of Control,” and though there can be unique situations in some organizations, there are also decent historical guidelines.
Span of control isn’t simply dependent on individuals; it’s a basic limitation of all managers as it describes only their direct reports. Though any manager can control any number of people if there are enough levels in between, not so when it comes to direct reports.
Research (mostly military-based) has shown that a leader can directly control about three to six persons effectively. Additionally, the “relationships” among those supervised are as important as their actual number.
Managing four people who interact constantly might be harder than supervising five or six who work largely independently.
Generally, an executive (someone managing managers) should supervise a maximum of four or five people.
In real practice, you don’t have to be an expert to know if you’re in trouble with span of control. If you have more than half a dozen people reporting to you, it’s probably too many.
Even six could be too many if those six have consistent dealings with each other. The reason of course, is that in addition to managing relationships with each subordinate, managers have to get involved to an extent in their relationships with each other.
In simple terms, going from four to five direct reports, each with four direct reports of their own, potentially doubles your effective workload while increasing your output (productivity) capacity by only 20 percent.
If the people you supervise don’t interact, you can handle more of them.
Remember, too, that I’m discussing managerial span of control — managers managing managers. The numbers can increase significantly when managing individual contributors, particularly if highly skilled.
